Vote, or else

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: January 30, 2009

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (hey, that’s the first time I’ve gotten to write that! All right!) brought “pay-to-play” into our standard national political lingo.

But how about vote for pay?

An Arizona state legislator is moving a bill that dock the pay of lawmakers who miss floor votes without an excused absence. From The Arizona Republic:

“I think it’s just a matter of right and wrong,“ Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-Glendale, said Tuesday before the House Government Committee. “If you’re working, you should get paid, and if you’re not working, you shouldn’t get paid.“

Saying he’s tired of seeing colleagues miss votes they consider unimportant, Weiers calls in HB 2127 for lawmakers to lose an amount not less than $175 for each day they miss a floor vote. Those lawmakers also would be listed on the Legislature’s Web site as failing to vote.

As I said on Politics4All this afternoon—

SIDEBAR: If you’re a political junkie, you have to check out Politics4All.com. Think facebook meets RealClearPolitics. If you join, look me up. END SIDEBAR

—when I was working in the Florida Legislature, it wasn’t uncommon for members to “take a walk.“ This term was understood to mean that instead of voting for (or against, as the situation demanded) a bill, the legislator in question would have to answer his phone or nature’s call. And invariably and mysteriously, those emergency, can’t-miss interruptions would always come just as a vote was being called.

So the legislator could allow passage or ensure defeat of a bill without actually having to take a stand on it.

Now, taking a walk is tricky. If you have a particularly thorny issue and several legislators take a walk, you run the risk of losing your quorum. That could lead to the bill being temporarily postponed—the legislative equivalent of a death sentence—or rescheduled for another date, at which time the legislators might have to arrange for a brand new set of circumstances that, darn it, keep them from voting. This is especially applicable to thorny issues in committee, where there are fewer votes to be had in the first place.

With me so far?

As I said on Politics4All this afternoon, I like the idea of vote for pay. After all, lawmakers are sent to state capitals around the country to ... wait for it ... MAKE LAWS. In addition to the actual votes, this involves exposure to and consideration and deliberation of differing viewpoints on pending bills. You can’t be exposed to information about a bill or consider or deliberate it if you aren’t there.

If a legislator has a legitimate reason for missing votes, he doesn’t have to incur the fine. It’s simple enough to fire off a letter to the clerk or secretary of the chamber to explain the absence. Actually, he should be doing this anyway, since he should have explanations for all his absences on the record as a matter of accountability. Without those explanations, how can constitutents judge the legislator’s performance?

The Arizona bill would only apply for floor votes, but it’s already raising hackles among lawmakers there. “I think we have a built-in performance review of every member down here: It’s called the election,“ one sniffed with disdain.

Oh, how naive. I guess that fellow never heard of the power of incumbency.

Or maybe he has.

Anyway, there are two more interesting points about this story: One, notice the reasoning the sponsor gives for this bill:

“Unless someone can show me another way that can get people’s attention, money is the only way to get people’s attention,“ Weiers said.

This legislator has decided to speak to his colleagues in a language they’ll understand. Gutsy, sure, but also pretty disturbing when you think about it, since Weiers believes money to be the only currency that counts with his colleagues.

Secondly:

The committee endorsed the bill on a 4-3 vote, sending it to the House floor by way of the Rules Committee ...

Rep. Warde V. Nichols, R-Gilbert, joined Campbell and Driggs in voting against the bill. However, opponents said their objections were to the financial penalty and not to the idea of publicizing the names of those who miss votes.

Voting in favor were Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, the committee’s chairman and a co-sponsor; Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista; Rep. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson; and Rep. Steve B. Montengro, R-Litchfield Park. Rep. Tom Chabin, D-Flagstaff, was absent.

Catch that last part?

One committee member was absent.

The committee passed the bill 4-3.

I wonder ... does Rep. Chabin has an excused absence, or was he taking a walk?

Hat tip to Jeffrey Chubb for this topic.