sham.jpg
The public has been outraged for years about the practice of members of the LA House of Representatives changing their votes at anytime before the Lege adjourns Sine Die.

The Senate does not allow such practice.

Governor Bobby Jindal included Item 5(3) in his “call” for the current Special Session which provides: [P]rohibiting legislators from changing votes after completion of floor action….

Friday, the House enacted a rule that allows a member to change his vote as long as the does it on the same day. See House Resolution No. 3.

A step BACKWARD

Prior to the adoption of House Resolution No. 3, 2008 E.S., House Rule 10.8 prohibited the changing of one’s vote after the result of the vote was announced by the presiding officer.

Previously, the House got around House Rule 10.8 by simply suspending the rules and allowing a member to change their vote at any time before the House adjourned that particular session.

In other words, by suspending the rules there was no prohibition against changing one’s vote.

Under the newly-amended rule 10.8 (as amended by House Resolution No. 3), there is still nothing to prevent a member from changing his vote until Sine Die adjournment as long as the House simply suspends the rules.

Thus, nothing has changed except to codify in the House Rules the practice of vote changing.

A solution

Had Governor Jindal and the House been serious about stopping the practice of vote changing, they would have enacted a statute prohibiting the practice. At least, then it would have required both houses of the lege to suspend the statute for the session to allow vote changes.

A violation to correct a violation

In explaining why he offered House Resolution 3…

House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Terrytown, [author of HR 3] said he did not want to simply take away members’ right to change their vote. The Advocate, February 23, 2008.

Often times, he said, a seatmate will vote for a lawmaker who is in the Senate or in the bathroom. (emphasis mine) Ibid.

The seatmate may get the vote wrong, Tucker said. Ibid.

However…

House Rule 10.3 prohibits anyone from voting a member’s machine when that member is not in the Chamber. If one violates House Rule 10.3, there are sanctions on the member who voted another’s machine if the person who was voted was not in the Chamber.

Therefore, if one is in the Senate one is definitely not in the Chamber. Depending on which bathroom a member may be in, they may not be in the Chamber.

A sham

This is another case where we should not listen to what we are told, but what is being done.

It’s just another attempt to deceive the public and to allow Governor Jindal to claim he accomplished something that he didn’t.

C.B.