LEGISLATIVE RULES NEED CHANGING (3-2004)

While the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution 
in the hot summer of 1787, they debated a lot of points, 
sometimes rather emotionally. But one thing all the 
delegates were in agreement on from the beginning was that 
this country would be a representative democracy, not a 
pure democracy.

In a pure democracy, the people get to vote on every law. 
Pure democracy, in which every bill is put up for public 
referendum, is far too cumbersome a process for a country, 
or even a state, to adopt as its form of government.

California uses the direct democracy approach every time it 
places a “proposition” on the ballot. Propositions are 
passed or defeated based on the whims of the majority du 
jour. 

In a representative democracy, on the other hand, the 
people vote for those who are going to represent them in 
government. Ideally, the representatives will vote 
according to the wishes of the majority of their 
constituents. 

And just as every man and woman’s vote carries equal 
weight, it is often assumed that every vote cast in the 
legislature is equal. Unfortunately, although technically 
true, that is not always how it works out.

Take the Indiana House, for example. Last week, the 
Republican members of the House walked out because they 
couldn’t get House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer (D-South Bend) 
to call a vote on a proposed amendment to the state’s 
constitution defining marriage as the union between one man 
and one woman.

The Indiana Senate already has passed the proposed 
amendment with bipartisan support. It also enjoys 
bipartisan support in the House, where all 49 republicans 
and several democrats have signed on to the measure. If it 
ever comes up for a vote in the House, it will pass.

But despite the bipartisan support, Bauer stubbornly has 
refused to bring the measure to the full house for a vote, 
even after several democrats signed a petition asking him 
to do so.

Is this democracy in action? 

When one man can kill a bill, even if it would be sure to 
pass if brought to a vote, it is a mockery of democracy. 
And that’s the power held by Bauer.

House rules are necessary, of course. But the legislative 
process can be very convoluted, bringing into play many 
esoteric rules of parliamentary procedure that make 
Robert’s Rules of Order seem like a simple recipe for 
cookies.

But any rule that allows a single representative or senator 
to determine the outcome of a bill before it gets a fair 
vote is a rule that needs to be changed, no matter how 
deeply rooted in history it is.

When the republicans walked out last Tuesday, they were 
heckled by the democrats. The democrats accused them of not 
fairly representing their districts, and of being 
crybabies.

Perhaps that is true to some extent. But I place the blame 
squarely on the shoulders of Bauer for forcing the 
republican’s action. His obstinate refusal to allow a vote 
on the proposed amendment forced the republicans to make 
the drastic move.

Bauer has said that an amendment is not necessary, because 
the state already has a law that defines marriage. But that 
law is currently being challenged in court. Constitutional 
amendments cannot be challenged. 

Whether one agrees with the amendment to ban gay marriages 
or not, it should be clear that the process is flawed. This 
is not the first time a single member of the House or 
Senate has spoken for the entire legislative body. In fact, 
it happens rather often.

Perhaps both houses of the General Assembly should adopt a 
rule that would force the Speaker of the House or the 
Senate President Pro Tempore to bring a bill up for a vote 
if they are presented with a bipartisan petition asking for 
such a vote to take place.

There may be other alternatives, but any rule change that 
would prevent a single legislator from hamstringing a bill 
that has majority support would be better than the process 
that is currently employed.