The same thing happened in Indiana as happened in Wisconsin...

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: New constitutional amendment (state constitution, not federal): If the state patrol cannot locate member of congress, or said member is out of state and not reachable or not cooperating, a governor can appoint a replacement until a special election can be held, to be scheduled within three months of the appointment. Nearly every state can dispatch the state patrol to force the folks back into the chambers, but they can't go beyond state lines.

If a state chooses to do this, that would be fine. Just as the United States Senate could decided to limit or remove the filibuster. But as the law stands now, they absent members are doing what they think is right.

They are paid to vote, not to avoid voting. They surely think it is right, but it isn't what they are paid to do.

Well, they're paid to represent their constituents. Certainly more than just "vote". In fact, I'd say they're primarily charged with the responsibility of crafting legislation that serves the interest of the state. Again, going to a national example, holding a filibuster to prevent proposed legislation from even being heard on the floor of the Senate isn’t voting. But it is doing their job.

I should add, I'm not necessarily defending them. I'm really not sure how I feel about how they're going about it. But there are similar tactics that are used from time to time. Shutting down the government rather than voting on a budget seems a near corollary. Not sure I like that either. But I don't really know.

We elect people to represent us. I guess there are some issues they feel are important enough to take any measures legally available. But that doesn't mean they're "right". It's a bit of a gray area, to be sure.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: What they are doing is opposing legislation proposed by the majority. They feel that it’s important enough to use an extreme provision of the law to prevent it from passing. But they’re using the law and they’re doing what they believe is in the interest of, and representing their constituents, which, is their job. It’s maybe more extreme, but along the same lines as the last Congress using the filibuster in the Senate to oppose legislation that had never even been discussed on the floor. That’s the law, and they can do it. If we want to change it, we have to change the law.

Right, this is not a filibuster (as suggested earlier), this is preventing a quarum. A filibuster is a small group of people continuing to talk (in theory, now they just say "we're filibustering" and don't need to work on it) in order to prevent a vote. A quarum is a minimum number of legislators who must be present in order to call a vote. This is also different because it requires almost all the Dems to coordinate in unison.

(Okay, and to try to report without weighing in on the issues...)

I don't know enough about what is going on in Indiana. As I understand the situation in Wisconsin, it's not a "right to work" issue. They are specifically looking to limit the collective bargaining rights of unions to allow them to only bargain for salaries, but not for things like benefits, retirement, or scheduling.

One big critique of that legislation is that it does not apply to all unions in the state. It has been written to not be applied to law enforcement or firefighters (but does apply to teachers). The accusation is that these are groups that supported the Repubs., and the unions that would be limited by the proposal are much more Liberal.

Please take what I've said with a grain of salt. That is just how I remember things from TV and Radio news. I'm not up for taking the time to link to more solid research.

Ya, I didn't know if filibuster was the right phrase. LOL

Exactly. But filibuster is a good example. They used to do it in the House too, but they passed a rule limiting how long you can debate. They used the exact tactic of leaving so there would be no quorum in the US House too. Again, they passed a rule that eliminated that option.

Any state can do as the US House has done and pass rules preventing this if they feel it is in their best interest. Interestingly, our US Senate has chosen not to pass such a rule, though each side has threatened to do so in the last 10 years.

In practice, this is no different than a filibuster. The rule allowing anyone to argue a bill for as long as they like isn't included so that an individual can defeat a bill. The filibuster is use of that rule with an ulterior motive. Is it right? That’s up for discussion. But, it’s legal. And in these states, the disappearing quorum is legal. It is a use of an existing rule that is outside it’s likely intended purpose. But it is legal.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

yamaha wrote: I think they shouldn't have their cozy 6 figure salaries to return to either....

Not sure if it matters, but... "Indiana legislators make a base annual salary of $22,616, plus $155 for each day in session or at a committee hearing and $62 in expense pay every other day.[10]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_General_Assembly "According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2001, Indiana had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $27,522 which ranked 32nd in the United States (including the District of Columbia) and was 90% of the national average, $30,413." http://www.city-data.com/states/Indiana-Income.html

for some reason I am doubting those numbers, either that or the state/lobbiest groups are gifting $100k mercedes to these people. I think they need to pass a rule that states "If in the event of a lack of minimum number to call a vote, the bill carries over until there is sufficient members present. btw, there are only 100 total, and 63 I believe were there yesterday with 65 or 67 needed.....

I did see a state trooper escorting 2 people back towards indianapolis. I'm assuming it is related, since the 2 individuals were complaining(and driving in a bentley) LoL

Again, going to a national example, holding a filibuster to prevent proposed legislation from even being heard on the floor of the Senate isn’t voting. But it is doing their job.

To put it very succinctly: Bull E36 M3. And you know that it's bull E36 M3. If Republicans were pulling this crap, you'd be crying 'foul.'

poopshovel wrote: To put it very succinctly: Bull E36 M3. And you know that it's bull E36 M3. If Republicans were pulling this crap, you'd be crying 'foul.'

Wow.

Okay.

Maybe I should have said something like this.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I should add, I'm not necessarily defending them. I'm really not sure how I feel about how they're going about it. But there are similar tactics that are used from time to time. Shutting down the government rather than voting on a budget seems a near corollary. Not sure I like that either. But I don't really know. We elect people to represent us. I guess there are some issues they feel are important enough to take any measures legally available. But that doesn't mean they're "right". It's a bit of a gray area, to be sure.

Not a big deal. I just don't understand how anything I said could have made you so angry.

While you might not like it, it's the law and therefore legal. Maybe not moral, but it's still legal.

poopshovel wrote: To put it very succinctly: Bull E36 M3...

If the people they represent do not want this bill passed, and they are doing whatever they legally can to keep it from getting passed, are they not "representing"?.

BTW - Is there any reason they ever have to come back?

This is likely (if they have to go back) a delaying action, but I am not sure what they will gain by delaying. Are they hoping for public opinion to go there way and create pressure?

Actually I don't think it's legal... that's why they have fled the state. Sort of like a certain director fled to France...

If within WI, the state police could force them back into session. Outside of WI, the WI state police don't have jurisdiction, so it would take a Federal warrant (which politically won't happen) and even then they could contest extradition.

So it certainly won't be prosecuted (and to use Al Gore's justification of "no controlling legal authority"), but I don't think it's legal...

wcelliot wrote: Actually I don't think it's legal...

I'm not a legal expert. Just googled "wisconsin democrats legal" and found this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-democrats-hiding-face-legal-political-consequences/story?id=12972163&page=1

"Now with the standoff showing no sign of abating -- and lawmakers in other states weigh whether to follow in the Wisconsin Democrats' footsteps -- experts say the absconding lawmakers' tactics are legal "

Don't know if it's right. There's a lot of interesting thoughts in that article.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Actually I don't think it's legal...

I'm not a legal expert. Just googled "wisconsin democrats legal" and found this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-democrats-hiding-face-legal-political-consequences/story?id=12972163&page=1 "Now with the standoff showing no sign of abating -- and lawmakers in other states weigh whether to follow in the Wisconsin Democrats' footsteps -- experts say the absconding lawmakers' tactics are legal " Don't know if it's right. There's a lot of interesting thoughts in that article.

The article seems to equate "little legal risk" with "legal"...

It spells out that "The state constitution requires lawmakers to fulfill their duties to the best of their abilities and allows the legislature to "compel the attendance" of absent members to reach a quorum, though the documents do not spell out what types of compulsion can be used" but then basically says that since there is no clear means of enforcing the statute, that there is little legal risk to to the lawmakers.

I absolutely agree with that opinion (and it's basically what I wrote above)... but that's not the same as saying that refusing to comply with the "compelled attendence" is legal... I think it's pretty clear (even from the article) that it's not. We're back to VP Gore's "no controlling legal authority"... just because a law can't be enforced doesn't mean it's not a law... though partisan "experts" then said that made Gore's actions legal as well.

Yeah, you could be right. I wondered the same thing when I read it. In the one case it clearly states that its "legal", then doesn't support that with anything but explanations of why they won't be prosecuted.

tuna55 wrote: New constitutional amendment (state constitution, not federal): If the state patrol cannot locate member of congress, or said member is out of state and not reachable or not cooperating, a governor can appoint a replacement until a special election can be held, to be scheduled within three months of the appointment. Nearly every state can dispatch the state patrol to force the folks back into the chambers, but they can't go beyond state lines.

I believe this already exists.

If a representative fails to do their duty, the Governor has the authority to dismiss them.

If a seat is vacant, the Governor has the authority to appoint a replacement.

I'm pretty sure that is the way it works in essentially every state.

Conquest351 wrote: A friend of mine and I talk about politics all the time. Mainly because we share the same views. I strongly think the gov't officials should not be paid more than the average mean salary for their region. That means, if they're governor, they should get the avg. mean salary for the state, if they're a national rep, the avg. mean salary for the nation. THAT would mean that in order to get a raise, they need to make the avg. mean salary of the entire region higher, not simply vote to give themselves a raise. Just a thought.

their salary is not why they go into it.

Linda McMahon just spent $50M of her own money to get a job that paid less than $200k a year. Not super smart for her.

I am not familiar with the details. I am generally in favor of collective bargaining rights.

There is a difference, however, for teachers.

Compulsory education laws require kids to go to school. When a union closes a school, they are preventing students from their right to an education, and conflicting with compulsory education laws.

So, it seems to me the debate becomes whose rights should take precedence- the rights of teachers to collectively bargain, or the rights (and requirements) for students to go to school.

Regarding the legislators-

Seems to me the voters just elected the Republican officials, and they are doing exactly what they agreed to. I think the legislators in disagreement should do everything they have the authority to do (filibuster, etc) if they have an objection.

However, utilizing illegal methods to thwart the will of the people is beyond the authority of the legislators.

It is not representing their constituents to fail to do their job. It is promoting their own political agenda, grandstanding, and choosing which constituents (the minority) to support.

If the constituents in their district happen to be a minority in the state, tough luck. Vote with their constituents, and let the chips fall where they may.