CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 04, 2010 05:51 AM UTC
46 Comments
Jared and Doug in bed together.
This bill is going nowhere, because those other 433 reps love Christmas Trees.
And now you come along and throw cold water in my face… I hate reality – it’s too much like cynicism.
.
Like it or not, and I don’t like it, this ignores how legislation gets done.
Jared never was a legislator, I understand him liking this: he doesn’t know how laws are made.
But Doug was in the State Leg for 16 years. What could he be thinking ?
Or maybe a cynic would say that they both know that it is unworkable, but since they are both in safe Districts, this is a fun way to make their colleagues squirm, while they pretend to be above the fray.
Either way, this hints that these two men aren’t really into all that collegiality stuff.
Where can I find a list of the Bill’s Co-Sponsors ?
.
And in the Colorado State Legislature, all bills except the Long Bill are done under a single subject requirement.
It works here. Maybe that’s what they were thinking.
.
But the Colorado State Legislature and the US Congress actually operate in fundamentally different ways.
Usually the one can be an excellent preparation for the other, if the person doing the preparing is a competent learner. That is not the case here.
.
The two do work in fundamentally different ways. But I think Congress could be improved by following some of the better ideas we have here.
Of course US Congress operates differently. This will make it operate better.
I like that it puts limits on the arrogance in the Senate, too.
Currently, having introduced it only this afternoon, it’s just Jared and Doug.
GovTrack.US has the bill status, supposedly. I’ve seen it get off by more than a bit, though; you can also try Thomas.LOC.gov for that kind of info.
.
I had already checked and saw there was 1 Sponsor and 1 Co-Sponsor.
Normally a Sponsor lines up Co-Sponsors before introducing something on the floor, don’t they ? I was trying to suggest that their colleagues have decided that this was just for show.
Plus, it’s been sent to the Rules Committee to die.
This is something the Bobsey Twins can brag about during August Recess to constituents who have no clue how their government works.
.
I wonder why it was sent there? Maybe because it’s a Rule? Also, almost every bill is sent to the Rules Committee before consideration; without a rule from the Rules Committee, there is no framework for debate on the floor.
He’s a Member of Congress now though, isn’t he? I’m sure he understands how laws are made just fine. In fact, Jared strikes me as someone who has a natural inclination to study the dorky side of how policy is constructed. Probably why he sits on the Rules Committee…?
.
He told me that he was going to introduce legislation to stop the US Army from employing any more Mercenaries. My recollection is that he said that would be one of his first actions as a Congressman.
I had presented him an opportunity to use the federal courts to temporarily stop that practice, and he said that he preferred to come up with a legislative solution.
Unless I missed it, I don’t think he has yet introduced what I understood was to be among his first pieces of legislation. True, he has introduced other items, but none yet deal with what I thought he said were his top priorities.
Fer sure, he’s a quick study. But this “single subject” thing is just for show. It would gut the most powerful levers of power available to the Rules Committee.
By introducing this, he may be expressing a sign of frustration with a byzantine legislative process that he never anticipated.
Regardless of how much he studies the dorky side of how policy is constructed, the job of Congressman is mostly about politics, that is, getting along with other Congressmen and persuading them to support your initiatives and priorities.
I find Congressman Polis likable and personable. But I do not yet see evidence that he is an effective advocate or champion. Nor has he yet demonstrated that he is an able legislator. Teaming with Doug Lamborn on this, of all people, also hints at something else.
He is used to the folks that surround him kissing up to him. That calls for one type of skill set. Now he has to figure out how to get peers to help him. That takes different skilz.
.
The house can’t really pass rules that bind the Senate, and vice versa.
Pretty sure that there would have to be something bicameral, and there would have to be some kind of referee (a joint committee for instance) that gets to decide what is or is not covered under the single subject rule.
.
it merely proposes a change to House Rules.
.
But the House can’t change its rules to make the Senate do something.
For it to work, both chambers have to agree to do it, and have some sort of ref–otherwise the House could just hold the Senate hostage by ruling every bill they send as not fitting under the title unless it’s exactly what they want, and there would be no way for the Senate to redress that.
Look at that filibuster…
They can filibuster a motion to proceed, but they can’t filibuster a message from the House.
But the Rules committee might not allow it to proceed under normal House order, and if it did, the Committee of the Whole (the House in general) could challenge the proceeding and stop it.
.
You’ve demonstrated that ever since I’ve been here.
I don’t get why you are pretending that this is something real. It is a direct assault on the power of the Rules Committee. It will never come out of that committee. Ever.
.
and I meant ‘House’
They may have to tweak it, though I think technically receiving a bill from the Senate is also a House action. The Senate Clerk appears in the House chambers during a general session with the Senate bill, and the House Clerk announces the passage of the Senate bill. The Speaker then declares that the House will receive the bill. At this point any member of the House, under the proposed rule, would be able to challenge receipt of the bill as a point of order.
A Google search for this practice returns an interesting result that I think supports the constitutionality of this rule: the House refuses to consider any appropriations bill sent by the Senate.
to replace it with an entirely different bill.
I’m writing my Rep. I like it.
By the Constitution, each house of Congress gets two write its own rules, and neither can affect the other directly.
What you are effectively saying is that the Senate’s current practice of passing completely different budget bills over the top of House bills is just as “wrong” as this proposed rule change.
But the rule change only affects the House. The Senate can still try to pass bills that don’t conform to House rules, but under the proposed rule, the House will not consider such bills unless a challenge on a point of order is successful (doubtful assuming the House Speaker follows the ruling of the Parliamentarian and the Parliamentarian in turn is faithful to the rule’s intent).
So the action does not directly affect the Senate; it only affects the chances that a multi-subject bill will be heard in the House, much as the current filibuster rules limit the realm of the “possible” in House bills that must then pass to the Senate.
The proposed rule states that any member may challenge a single subject ruling via a point of order.
House point of order rules are referred to the Speaker of the House, who then consults with the House Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian is supposed to issue a precedent and text based reading, which theoretically is neutral. The Speaker then announces his/her decision. A member can appeal any such decision, which forces a simple majority vote with a limited debate period preceding the vote. (No ruling by the Speaker has been overruled in more than 50 years, which would seem obvious since at worst case the Speaker is elected by majority vote…)
this would allow only the majority party to add off topic amendments. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.
But that assumes either:
(a) The Parliamentarian is in the pocket of the majority (which is generally not true – the current Parliamentarian came into office in 2004, and is only the fouth Parliamentarian in 82 years).
or (b) the Speaker ignores (or fires and replaces) the Parliamentarian to get the result he/she wants.
In general, the House and Senate operate within the bounds of the Parliamentarian’s rulings. Recently in the Senate, two Parliamentarians have been alternating turns at the wheel when a Speaker decides they don’t like a particular ruling, but the two are actually quite close in their rulings and are not generally partisan.
1. Logrolling is how stuff gets done. I love the idea in theory but I’m not sure it creates a net-positive effect on what will get done.
2. Outside the realm of budget bills, the Senate crafts its own version of most things, so as long as they are stuffing many topics in one bill, conference committees will just force the House to consider the same type of bills they were before…or assure that nothing ever gets passed.
The Senate is already not known for having discipline when it comes to bills. The proposed rule would make it easy for obstructionist Senators to poison bills – just amend with some really popular but off-subject law. (E.g. Democratic Senators try to pass a clean energy bill; Republican Senators introduce an amendment to increase health care coverage for babies. Democrats don’t want to vote against covering babies’ health care, so…)
As to the conference committee part, the rule would prohibit the House from considering any normal multi-subject bill except via a point of order. Either the House quickly establishes precedent that it essentially ignores the rule, or the Senate adjusts, or we enter into a longer term gridlock; there’s not really a middle ground.
Example –
We want to change some big hairy legislation from the past.
Single subject means we can only change one piece at a time
E.g. health care reform is a single subject.
This isn’t the ‘single subject’ requirement of Colorado Amendments and Initiatives (limited to a single simple sentence), but rather the ‘single subject’ of the legislature, which can and often does address complex issues within a single bill.
well that’s different.
Crude- but different.
You never expected to agree with doug lamborn and I never expected to agree with coloradopols.com on something 🙂
This would be a good step in the right direction. Props to Polis and Lamborn.
Start off getting just a few votes. Give Jared time, this is the kind of thing that he is good at – finding a way to make something very different acceptable.
I bet it makes it out of rules.
.
but I’m living under a bridge right now, and it’s not clear what belongs to me anymore, so I can’t really wager anything.
Well, except for a rusty shopping cart mired in the creekbed. What’s that worth ? Maybe I’ll dig it out.
.
(Did I say that?)
I’m sure it won’t happen again.
Doubt if it ever comes to pass.
A single subject rule (would have to be in both Houses) should help reign in pork.
That along with the end of the filibuster rule in the Senate. (Up and down majority vote on bills)
That’s change you can believe in. But we’ll see hell freeze over first.
That’s already pretty much a given; too many Democratic Senators in opposition to the current proposal, which stages a series of easier-to-reach cloture votes until a simple majority is required.
It’s more likely, if someone thinks to introduce it, that the ground rules of a filibuster revert to those in effect prior to the 1970’s reforms. Because the current rule is ‘3/5 of those duly elected and sworn’, minority party Senators only need to keep a couple of Senators on duty during the filibuster, but majority party Senators must stay in attendance if they wish to have any chance of breaking the filibuster. Under the previous rule, the count (at the time 2/3) was taken of Senators present; this forced the minority party to remain in attendance through the filibuster, which would require actual work.
Enough Senators would probably accept a return to the ‘Senators present’ rule with the 3/5 cutoff to make it a new procedure in the next Senate session, I think.
Lamborn is in CO-05, not 4.