Obenshain: “Nobody said carrying conservative bills in a Democrat-controlled Senate would be easy”
By Shaun Kenney | Sunday, January 30th, 2011 | PolicyVirginia State Senator Mark Obenshain offers his thoughts on Janet Howell’s remarkable abuse of power:
Of course, nobody said carrying conservative bills in a Democrat-controlled Senate would be easy, but I was hoping it would be fair. The other day, however, we witnessed a strikingly raw exercise of power when, in a clear violation of the rules that govern the Senate, the Senate Committee on Privileges & Elections (P&E) refused to allow an up-or-down vote on eight bills that received a negative recommendation in subcommittee.
In fact, the bills were not even on the agenda. When I made a simple and routine motion to add the bills to the calendar, the committee chair, Senator Howell, immediately ruled it out of order. Such a motion is never out of order.
I asked the Chair to state the basis of her ruling – why is it out of order? What rule or authority do you rely upon? I must admit that the reply was not very revealing. Or perhaps it was, in its own way: “Because I believe it’s out of order.”
(As an interesting side note, Majority Leader Dick Saslaw had a bill he wanted to add to the agenda of another committee the other day. I asked whether the motion to add a bill to the calendar was in order; apparently there are two sets of rules, one of the majority and the other for the minority.)
A transportation lockbox (SJ 353 – Obenshain), charter school expansion (SJ 360 – Obenshain), a Right to Work Amendment (SJ 323 – McDougle), the Repeal Amendment (SJ 280 – McDougle), voter identification (SB 808 – Obenshain; SB 864 – Martin) and more – vanished from the committee docket on the whim of the chair.
Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which still governs proceedings in the Senate of Virginia, spoke to just such violations, noting that “the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power, are the forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted … by a strict adherence to which, the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.” (emphasis added)
To his great credit, the Democratic president pro tempore, Senator Chuck Colgan, delivered a compelling lecture to his fellow Democrats, telling them that even though it was common to steamroll the minority in years past, “It was wrong then and it is still wrong today.” If only the rest of his caucus had been taking notes.
So let’s to through the list:
Mark Obenshain says Janet Howell abused her power as P&E chair…
Steve Martin says Janet Howell abused her power as P&E chair…
Chuck Colgan — the senior ranking Democrat in the Virginia Senate — says Janet Howell abused her power as P&E chair…
THOMAS JEFFERSON says that Janet Howell abused her power as P&E chair.
Janet Howell needs to resign as P&E chair. That she continues to cling to power as a matter of political prerogative should shock any observer of decorous government straight to the core, and it has no place in any environment where “civility” is trumped up as a battering ram. Civility listens to all sides and obeys the rules.
If you ever want to know how democracy really dies, it’s not to thunderous applause… but to reasoning such as “because I believe it’s out of order.” There’s people marching in the streets of Cairo for far less.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
16 Responses to "Obenshain: “Nobody said carrying conservative bills in a Democrat-controlled Senate would be easy”"
This may be a silly question, but what are the rules to enforce the rules? Any law or rule that cannot be enforced doesn’t really serve a purpose and can’t meet its objective. There has to be some way to address this other than complaining and hoping voters will make a change in representation eventually.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by blogs of the world, Walter Levin. Walter Levin said: Blog: Obenshain: “Nobody said carrying conservative bills in a Democrat … http://bit.ly/hIlr5r [...]
Sen. Howell’s website quotes her as saying, “Nineteen years ago I promised the voters to cast votes based on the long-term best interest of Virginians and not on short-term political advantage.”
So much for that. Now she won’t even allow votes!
This is self-defeating behavior by Howell and the Democrats. I’m sure that the Republicans in the House are watching carefully and will retaliate by killing Democratic bills coming over from the Senate. Partisan behavior begets gridlock and does not serve the interest of the Commonwealth.
A good article that I mostly agree with. I don’t know that resignation is necessary, but at the very least some type of formal censure is in order. Rules must be followed.
However, your ending hyperbole about Egypt is shortsighted and foolish. To say that living under the rule of a despot for 30 years is less than a P&E chair saying “I believe it is out of order” is terrible.
Shaun, I think 30 years of tyranny and oppression at the hands of an unelected leader is a bit more irritating to your average citizen than a Senate committee chair breaking the rules to kill seven bills that would have been killed even if a vote was taken on them.
Jerry, the rule here would be to have the chair’s ruling appealed to the full committee, where it would be voted down. At that point I believe an appeal could be made to the full Senate where, even with Colgan voting to overrule the chair, the Dems still have enough votes to sustain Howell’s decision.
Yes, she was wrong to do what she did. Yes, it’s a violation of the rules. No, it’s not the end of the world. No, it’s not even in the same universe as what’s happening in Egypt.
And, no, no one is going to care about this in November.
Brian: You have the parliamentary procedure correct. The chair’s ruling can be challenged…just as the Speaker’s rulings or the rulings of the President of the Senate can be challenged. The challenge would be resolved by a vote of the full committee. Since Dems hold a majority there, I expect it would have been upheld. That may be why the challenge wasn’t made. I’m not sure the option to appeal that to the full senate exists, but if it does, you are correct that it would have been upheld there.
What Howell did was high-handed and autocratic. It’s not the first decision made on that basis by either party in the General Assembly.
For instance, last year, Henry Marsh sent a bunch of House bills that the Democrats, as well as the Republican leadership, weren’t too crazy about to a special ad hoc subcommittee of Courts of Justice. I don’t believe that subcommittee ever met. If it did, those bills certainly did not emerge from it.
Vance Wilkins once changed the membership of a committe right before a meeting to change the result of a single vote. Within his power, but high-handed, autocratic and arrogant.
And, like this, the voters didn’t care a bit about that in November.
Shaun, give me a break. There are people marching in the streets of Cairo for FAR, FAR more than a breach of Jefferson’s Rules of Parliamentary Procedure…For instance, there inalienable human rights.
Let’s not turn this little imbroglio into more than it is – a petulant, dumb woman who doesn’t know the Rules and is just relying on her simple majority of votes rather than reason and proper Order. She’ll get what she has coming to her when her bills, and her colleagues bills, get to the House.
Rom: But the House has already been killing bills in subcommittee, without recorded votes, for several years. “We’re so mad you did this that we’re going to continue that thing we’ve been doing anyway!” Not much of a threat there.
SV,
I disagree. Senate Democratic bills normally get killed in House committees when the Republican majority opposes the bill itself. Those that don’t offend Republican principles get through in every session. In this case, I suspect that many Democratic bills, esp. any that are sponsored by Howell, that would have passed will get killed this session out of spite.
Steve, the main difference is that the House rules allow for subcommittees to kill bills. The Senate rules don’t. Senator Marchant recommended changing the rules, as Ben noted on NLS but that proposal was never adopted. So yes, she did break the rules. I just don’t think it’s a huge deal.
Also, in my book, Jefferson saying she is wrong works in her favor.
Brian and HR- I’m agreeing with you both actually. You’re right about Howell’s bills. I don’t have a problem with that, that’s the way the game is played. It’s also true that they do things all the time that are against “the rules.” And voters don’t really care about those procedural issues.
If there are those of you so short sighted as to not see the difference between “because I said so” in Egypt vs. “because I said so” in any other parliamentary body… then you deserve the government that attitude brings you.
The bottom line is, there really are people who have put with 30 years of “because I said so” in Egypt, and long before that. Jefferson was certainly aware of this… hence why we have rules….
Shaun, there’s a big difference between “because I said so” when you are talking about every aspect of daily life, as in Egypt, and the same phrase uttered about a bunch of bills that will never see the light of day.
What’s the most we got out of this? Democrats voting no on a bunch of stuff they said they’d vote against anyway. You can’t compare that with 30 year of totalitarian rule.
The people revolted because they had no other options. We do have an option – taking back the Senate in November.
So the rationale is OK, but since the fuse is shorter here in Virginia, that makes the difference?
Got it. Profoundly disagree, but I got it.
It’s the equivalent of crying wolf, Shaun. If we complain about something frivolous, we look partisan and unprincipled. If we hold our powder until there’s something legitimately bad, our arguments will be more powerful.
These bills would have been defeated by the full committee. Again, at best, we could have forced a couple of votes on these bills. That doesn’t win us much. It’s just not a good issue to fight over.
We have to pick our battles. I would rather get the last laugh in November.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.