It is all too commonplace for members of the Arkansas General Assembly (Representatives and Senators) to not vote on a bill if the vote is expected to be close and the bill is the least bit controversial.
Not voting or even voting “Present” serve as ways to help kill a bill. How is this? A bill must be approved by a majority vote and voting “No,” not voting, or voting “Present” is a way to help keep the bill from getting a majority.
Why not just vote “No”? Usually because the legislator does not want to be on record as a “No” and may want to pretend to some supporters that he wasn’t really against it but was called out of the chamber for something really really important … in actuality probably something like stepping out to get an ice cream sandwich.
Voting “Yes” or “No” will make some supporters mad. A legislator’s constituents may want one thing and a powerful donor may want the opposite. Solution? Duck the vote or just sit quietly in his seat and do nothing.
In the past Conduit’s legislative scorecard has scored a legislator’s failure to vote or a vote of “Present” the same as a vote of “No.” Why? Because that is the practical effect of those two actions.
We will be revising how we score voting records because we do not want to reward this weak kneed practice. Perhaps it should still count just as much against them when they fail to vote for a good bill but not be given credit for being silent on a bad bill.
Going to Little Rock representing the people of a district and then not voting is not what the voters expect. Voters deserve someone who will say “Yes” or “No” to an issue.
Once this legislative session is over, we will be reviewing key legislation for examples where legislators failed to vote or merely voted “present.”
For today we want to remind you of a couple of instances in previous legislative sessions where a legislator received much criticism for not voting.
2017 James Sturch. In 2017 Rep. James Sturch (now a State Senator) killed a bill to put limits on special elections by local governments. Special elections are used by cities, counties, and school districts to pass taxes when they know voter turnout will be low. Sturch had voted for the bill and it would have passed and would have been sent to the governor to become law, but the vote was challenged which meant those who voted “For” had to affirm their votes. The bill would have passed with a bare majority of 51 votes if Sturch had affirmed his “Yes” vote. But, just before his turn to affirm his vote, he looked at his phone and ducked out of the chamber which meant his vote “For” was scratched and the bill failed being one vote shy of having a majority.
2013 A Democrat Bloc That Didn’t Vote. In 2013 the legislature passed the pro-life HB1037 which was called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, but the bill was vetoed by then Governor Mike Beebe (D). The legislature then voted on whether to override the Governor’s veto. This put several Democrats in a bind. They could either offend their Democrat governor by voting to override the pro-life bill; or they could offend many of their constituents by voting against the pro-life bill. Nineteen Democrats chose a third option – not voting. Many just snuck out of the chamber. Poor Representative Scott Baltz must have forgotten the plan because he left the chamber long after the others and only seconds before the vote which meant he was photographed as he left.
These two examples are from where not voting drew much attention. But the failure to cast a “Yes” or “No” vote normally does not attract much attention and the practice gets worse and worse. We think you deserve better.
