Omigod, state government has shut down! Are you prepared for the end of life as we know it, as the big, gaping hole of anarchy opens wide to swallow us all? Actually, the longer the Democrats stay away, the less mischief the General Assembly can create. Any big or important bills that missed deadlines for action can be introduced as amendments later on, so nothing really crucial is likely to be left undone. Maybe that's why Gov. Daniels is so nonchalant:
Democrats decamped to a hotel in Urbana, Ill. — 125 miles from Indianapolis — out of concern that Gov. Mitch Daniels might send state troopers to bring them back to the Statehouse. The Republican governor said he doesn't plan to do that.
"I trust that people's consciences will bring them back to work," Daniels said. "I choose to believe that our friends in the minority will, having made their point, come back and do their duty and the jobs they are paid to do."
Or maybe this is an indication of just how much he dislikes the proposed right-to-work legislation the Democrats have been protesting. Doubt if he'd be this low key if the Democratic desertion threatened passage of his education reforms.
He is right, though, in suggesting that what Democrats are doing is perfectly legitimate. Call them crybabies or childish if you want, but they're making use of the high quorum number --a two-thirds majority -- established by the Indiana constitution. This is one of those cases, as with filibuster issues in the U.S. Senate, in which one side lambastes the other for using an "unfair tactic" shamelessly ignoring the fact that it will has used the same tactic and probably will again.
One of the nonprofit boards I served on had such a high quorum requirement, and we had trouble doing business too many times. So we voted to change our definition of quorum to "the number of board members present for the meeting." Kinda defeated the whole concept, but at least we started getting things done.
Comments
Regardless which side of the aisle you sit on, this is not a "legitimate" tool for legislators to use. All the obvious "chickensh*t" aspects aside, it sets a very bad precedent on many levels.
When it becomes "ok" to just not show up and vote because you don't agree with proposed legislation, how long before there is no need to show up at all? Why schedule votes?
Seriously, if politicians (on both sides) figure out they can do this anytime they disagree, what do you think they will do? They'll abuse it, like they do everything else. A lot of important people in important places and positions are passing this off as "no big deal" but ask yourself this:
Who the he** needs a representative democracy if the representatives can simply refuse to represent?
But they are NOT refusing to represent. They are representing an opposing view- and the only option they had to do that was to walk out.
Kevin, how can you say that with a straight face? They have walked out on their employer. They have shirked their responsibilities as voting legislators. They have refused to return to work.
They have a (Indiana) constitutional obligation, having taken an oath, to vote on legislation brought before them in "The Peoples" house. They are behaving as though they are above the law, and if they get away with it will prove they really are above the law.
I'm sure the lawyers can find loopholes for these guys, but it doesn't change the fact this is cowardly, dishonest, and completely antithetical to a representative democracy.
Of course, they are democrats so we shouldn't be shocked I guess, the rules don't apply to them, just ask them.
Tim- They are working- they are in caucus. They sent in several amendments to bills yesterday.
As has been noted, this is not the first time this has happened- BOTH parties have used the "caucus" tactic to avoid votes.
Were you aware that Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of the Illinois Statehouse window in an attempt to deny a quorum to the majority party!
Good enough for Lincoln, good enough for me!
Any tool used by the minority to thwart the potential tyranny of the majority is certainly better than no tool at all. Our founding fathers certainly understood this. There are ways to represent other than being forced to accept whatever the majority is pushing. In fact, they are utilizing one of these tools by not allowing a quorum; thus representing the views of their constituents. If their constituents disagree, they have other remedies. Forced representation is no representation.
WD sez "Forced representation is no representation."
That's pretty ironic since unions give no choice, it's forced representation. You should proofread before you hit submit.
I'm not aware of any union, Tim, that signs a contract without the membership voting on it, nor any union that has leaders that aren't elected by the members.
That's like saying a guy is forced to eat what his wife plops down in front of him. Almost every husband is allowed to sleep in the garage if he chooses not to.