Why Grimes missed the vote

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: May 6, 2008

In response to a listener’s question, State Rep. David Grimes says he had some “personal business I had to take care of” that required him to be out of town Thursday afternoon. He said he had made his plans a week in advance, after reviewing the schedule of events for Thursday. Grimes said he was at the Capitol “all morning long, making sure there was nothing there that would require my attention,“ keeping an eye on the calendar for the afternoon session. Grimes said he then left to attend to his out-of-town business.

At 1 p.m., Grimes said, when the House came back into session, Grimes said that House leadership changed the calendar to bring up HB 787. “It was not supposed to be there,“ Grimes said.

“That’s something that happens on occasion,“ Grimes said about missing votes. “I’m in that chair all the time that I need to be in that chair. One vote wouldn’t have changed (the outcome),“ he said. “My vote wouldn’t have made a difference ... there’s nothing I can do to change it.“

Grimes went on to say that had he been in attendance, he would have voted no on the bill.

“(Double-dipping) is a serious problem that we have,“ he said, adding that his position on the issue has been made clear to everyone involved.

But I’m still wondering why Grimes was voted “present.“ Since he was out of town, someone else had to have voted his button, and that’s a violation of House Rule 32. Unfortunately, it isn’t the first time it’s happened ... these House members seem to be chronically unable to keep their fingers off of other members’ buttons.

So, my follow-up question for Rep. Grimes would be this: If he knew he was going to be out of town for the afternoon session, why didn’t he have his machine locked out so that no one else could vote on his behalf?

Here’s a helpful post from Doc’s Political Parlor on locking and unlocking legislators’ voting machines. It details the procedure legislators use to lock and unlock their machines—when they choose to do so. It also says that everyone assumes that everyone else is OK with voting everyone else’s machines, unless someone specifically objects.

I dare say we’ve reached the point in Montgomery that we need to have a look at changing the automatic nature of the “unanimous consent” provision that allows legislators to cast votes for others. I know it’s done for convenience, because there are times when legislators must be in negotiations with their colleagues or members of the Senate on bills in process—or they may just be in the water closet.

But provisions exist for legislators to submit what we in the Florida Legislature used to call “votes after roll call.“ For example, had he locked out his machine before he left Goat Hill Tuesday, Grimes could have submitted a no vote on HB 787 when he returned to the Capitol. That would have been more useful information for Grimes’ current (and prospective) constituents; they wouldn’t have had to wonder why he didn’t take a position on the bill, and they’re perfectly capable of determining whether an occasional trip out of town negatively impacts their representation in Montgomery.

Alabamians deserve to have the best information on how their elected officials are representing them in Montgomery; expecting members to cast only their own votes is the most basic expectation they could have.