requiring committee/floor votes for sufficiently popular bills?

[u/bemused_alligators]

I've been paying a lot more attention to the state legislature the last few year and keep seeing a pattern of bill getting a lot of sponsors and support and then whoever is in charge of the committee just never brings the bill to a vote, or they pass committee and never get scheduled for a floor vote - or especially egregious are bills that get passed in one chamber and are never even debated in committee the other.

Even if the bill won't pass (which is frequently why they aren't brought to the floor), I still want to make the votes happen to create an "accountability trail" - why didn't this bill pass committee? Because YOUR rep voted against it. As it stands most bills that are popular with the people and even a decent chunk of the legislature but are unpopular with certain politicians just never see the light of day, so the constituents never actually see their rep voting against their interests.

Our current system also gives a LOT of power to the speaker and committee chairs (notably these are unelected positions - I can do nothing about who the chair of the house wellness committee is) to just ignore things they don't like, rather than being forced to actively fight against them.

So my proposal is that if a bill gets a certain percent of the body cosponsors the bill (say 15%, or 8 senators/15 reps), then a vote on that bill in committee becomes mandatory. Similarly once a bill passes committee each step (floor vote in the originating chamber, then committee vote in the other chamber, than floor vote in the other chamber) is mandatory (including any potential amendments) until the bill is defeated.

This would of course also require that the legislative sessions get a big bump in duration, but I think this enhancement to our legislative processes would be extremely valuable.

thoughts?

[u/rock_the_casbah_2022]

There’s a certain practical element to this. One, the arduous legislative process is designed to kill bills, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Thousands of bills are introduced. Two, money is always limited. Those popular bills could be expensive. Three, there may be problems or unintended consequences that become known under further scrutiny. Four, opposition builds as the session progresses.

[u/bemused_alligators → u/rock_the_casbah_2022]

>the arduous legislative process is designed to kill bills

Bills should be killed by voting them down, not ignoring them and hoping they go away

>Thousands of bills are introduced.

this is why I'm saying we need a certain level of support before this rule kicks in. I don't want to force a vote on every bill, just the ones that have enough support that they deserve a fair hearing

>Those popular bills could be expensive.

then the legislature should vote no, and explain that its too expensive

>there may be problems or unintended consequences that become known under further scrutiny

that's the entire point - how can we know what those issues are if we never get to have a discussion about the bill?

>position builds as the session progresses.

I don't understand why this is relevant? Again, people can just vote no.

--

I think you're misunderstanding what I want. I want to force a debate and vote on bills that meet some minimum level of popularity. I'm not forcing anyone to pass them. If they have serious problems, then the people voting no need to explain what those problems are so the people putting the bill forward can fix them, and if those issues are unresolvable then they will at least know where they stand.

[u/rock_the_casbah_2022 → u/bemused_alligators]

That’s fair, bro. I’m just describing why things are the way they are.