Subject: message from Tom Round re: Texas Democrats' Blazing Saddles
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 5/19/2003, 6:27 AM
To: election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Texas Democrats' Blazing Saddles
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:05:20 +1000
From: Tom Round <t.round@griffith.edu.au>
To: AllisonHayward@aol.com
CC: election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu, owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu



Apparently the Texas constitution sets the quorum for each house at two-thirds of the total membership. Just before the 2000 election, I saw a mention in a news item on [then-] Governor Bush to the effect that he had managed to work well with the State Senate which [my paraphrase] "needs a two-thirds majority to pass any laws". This intrigued me so I looked up the relevant provision. As one might guess, the legal standard is a simple majority of the two-thirds (or more) present, but politically this means that dissenting legislators can block legislation if they number at least one-third in either house -- and don't even have to stay all night reading aloud from the encyclopaedia and furtively peeing in jars to carry out this "passive filibuster".

In most other cases I have seen, constitutions or other rules set the quorum much lower -- rarely more than an absolute majority (eg the US Congress) or an even smaller hurdle (one-third, for the Australian Parliament, unless legislation "otherwise provides"). According to the Guinness Book of Records, the UK House of Lords requires, or at the time required, only 3 peers (out of a thousand or so). The Commons required 40 MPs out of 600-700.

In my humble opinion, it is a mistake for constitution-makers to set a quorum in such a way that it gives an incentive for dissenting MPs to block new laws by absenting themselves (and it doesn't fix the problem to authorise the Speaker or the police to round them up and "compel their attendance"). It would make more sense to set a lower figure as quorum but require also that a quorum of the total membership actually vote in favour of a Bill for it to pass. Otherwise one can end up with the paradox of what the UK's "New Statesman" once called "tactical abstaining". If, say, a vote is deemed negative if fewer than half the eligible voters take part, then if you oppose a measure and abstain, you may see it fail (say, with 49 votes for, 1 against, and 48 abstentions). If however you and other opponents do bestir yourselves to attend and vote _against_ the measure, you may actually help it pass (say, with 49 v! otes for, 10 against, and 38 abstentions).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Tom Round
BA (Hons), LLB (UQ), PhD (Griff)
Research Fellow, Key Centre for Ethics,
   Law, Justice and Governance (KCELJAG)
Room 1.10, Macrossan Building, Nathan Campus
Griffith University, Queensland [Australia] 4111
Ph:        (061 or 07) 3875 3817
Mobile:   0438 167 304
Fax:       (061 or 07) 3875 6634
E-mail:    T.Round@gu.edu.au
Web:       http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



AllisonHayward@aol.com
Sent by: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu

18-05-2003 00:02

       
        To:        election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
        cc:        
        Subject:        Texas Democrats' Blazing Saddles



Since I believe many people on this list may have interesting opinions on the issue, I'd like to ask why the Texas Democrats tactic of leaving town to deprive the house of a quorum isn't more frequent.  Does the Texas legislature have particularly rigorous quorum requirements?  Particularly stingy per diem payments (or perhaps per diem unaffected by the absence of a quorum)?  I doubt it is the case that political operatives simply haven't thought of it before, since in my limited experience I encountered the tactic in political conventions - not all the time -- but enough to remember its existence.  Instead, I am assuming that Texas's parliamentary procedures permit the tactic to be used more easily than it could be used in other states -- but this is simply a hunch, and I am hoping someone can elaborate.

Allison Hayward
allisonhayward@aol.com