Question of the day
Thursday, Mar 19, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As I told you earlier today, the entire Georgia state legislature is under self-quarantine after a member showed up to vote who later tested positive for COVID-19.
From a press release…
U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rob Portman (R-OH) today introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to allow senators to vote remotely during a national crisis. … The Senate would have to vote to renew remote voting every 30 days.
* This is the passage in the Illinois Constitution which most people believe prevents remote voting by the General Assembly…
Sessions of each house of the General Assembly and meetings of committees, joint committees and legislative commissions shall be open to the public. Sessions and committee meetings of a house may be closed to the public if two-thirds of the members elected to that house determine that the public interest so requires; and meetings of joint committees and legislative commissions may be so closed if two-thirds of the members elected to each house so determine.
* A very able attorney and lobbyist who’s been around a while counsels against reinterpreting that passage with legislation to allow remote voting or taking a two-thirds vote to close public access…
Do I think there’s a way to legislate without being in Springfield? Yes.
Do I think it’s a good idea at this point? No.
Please don’t think I’m saying they should run down and vote on random things. But I think, at this point, they should work out what is essential, what needs to be voted on, and then if they need to vote, structure a roll call and go vote. Then every person who is there is quarantined for 14 days.
To have a truly functioning government - at least a democratic one - you have to ensure the public has access to their public officials in some capacity. And you have to have at least the appearance that government is functioning and working when everyone isn’t. In the coming weeks people will be looking at their local leaders in a way they never have before.
If every member of the GA self-quarantined as of last week when they were told to, they could go to Springfield in 8-10 days. And then leave and re-quarantine for 14 days when they leave.
Except lots didn’t self-quarantine. And if they don’t anticipate every problem that’s going to come up between now and May 31, they’ll have to come back.
* The Question: Should the General Assembly authorize secure remote voting (which would require one trip to Springfield, followed by a self-quarantine), or should the minimum number for a quorum come to Springfield once, vote on a limited agenda and then go home and self-quarantine until it is safe to return? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
online polls
- Fav human - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:42 pm:
While I doubt they’re able to do it today, there’s no reason they couldn’t live stream the session and have a digital board with the votes.
- thunderspirit - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:44 pm:
I voted remote, but with the caveat that it should be for a limited time, and be required that the results of the vote be live-streamed.
I have no idea how that would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny, though.
- PeoriaDem - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:45 pm:
I think procedure is very important in political structures, but I also think a lot of people are going to have to get very flexible with things given the way things are now.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:46 pm:
With publicly available and archived video stream, absolutely remote. Permanently.
Next up, remote voting for the rest of us.
- Anon - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:51 pm:
With current technology, remote vote & public oversight seems Plausible. The best part would be Mr. Mike captured digitally.
God bless all & be safe.
- Boomerang - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:51 pm:
They SHOULD have the ability to vote remotely under times of crisis. But I think they need to amend the state Constitution to do it legally. Therefore, I don’t think it’s possible.
- ChicagoVinny - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:51 pm:
Yes, during statewide emergencies and with a public video stream.
== Next up, remote voting for the rest of us. ==
In other words vote by mail, which we have.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:54 pm:
=== they need to amend the state Constitution===
If you want to be a strict constitutionalist, then they can do the two-thirds vote.
- Jibba - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 12:59 pm:
Perhaps during declared emergencies, at least.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:00 pm:
- In other words vote by mail -
You’re right, should have said “remote electronic”.
- Kyle Hillman - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:02 pm:
I mean it is not like Tillman would ever try to sue the state for not following the letter of the law or anything.
I think a total virtual vote, meaning people can see their elected are actually online pressing yes, no or present, - isn’t a bad idea if you can guarantee those votes would withstand legal scrutiny.
Absent that announce a limited bill schedule, stick to the schedule and limit your time in the building together.
Stating again, if the schedule is not clear - lobbyists have to come down.
You can reduce several hundred extra bodies in the building by just clarifying what is and what isn’t going to be considered.
- Not Necessarily UnConstitutional - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:02 pm:
Open to the public could be a livestream and live TV broadcast of a Zoom meeting, n’est-ce pas?
- NotRich - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:04 pm:
Remote legislation??? Yea, the public will believe that “because Madigan” didn’t manipulate roll call votes.. In person or not at all
- Roman - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:05 pm:
I voted minimum/limited.
Not to be overly dramatic, but legislators are part of the government’s public safety apparatus. They might have to put themselves in harm’s way on occasion to help set health policy — just as police officers, paramedics, and nurses do. Of course, they would need to practice social distancing as much as possible.
As long as they are dealing with an extremely limited agenda of time sensitive and emergency legislation that is largely agree to, it is doable.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:09 pm:
Voted “minimum”… here’s the take;
One member from all four caucuses *in* Springfield, during voting. Like a sort of verification to HQ, if you will.
That can be, for a caucus, their legislator actually in Springfield, or rotating every 3 days.
But, if odd things occur, each caucus in each chamber has a person “there” to have the interests of the caucus represented.
Otherwise, “remote, virtual, Skype, Zoom, etc.”
- Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:12 pm:
Voted minimum/limited with quarantine, for the same basic reasons that Roman did. I’m sorry if they have to put themselves in harm’s way, but they’re critical elected officials and this is an unprecedented crisis.
But I agree with Kyle too, though I would probably take a pass on going down even if my issues came up. I still have a phone.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:14 pm:
This is not difficult to fix. Livestream the meetings and show the votes in the Livestream.
The problem is that Springfield would have to up their game in the broadcast of sessions (including Committees) and they have never given any reason to believe they like this. The current video feeds are terrible. I watch the sessions sometimes and it’s like watching an 8th graded video class from 1998 do a video project. Have them call CSPAN and get it done.
- Dakota - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:20 pm:
No remote voting for 2 reasons, make that 3:
It’s not legal.
There isn’t anything THAT important right now.
If something needs attention they can go to work like others have to.
- Captain Obvious - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:21 pm:
What Roman said…
- dbk - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:28 pm:
They can live-stream both the session and the votes, assuming they can get the technology set up.
It can be made available through a link on the GA website.
I understand that these are extraordinary times, but I actually think that discussion might be more extensive, and voting better-informed, if legislators were safe and sound and self-sequestered.
- MakePoliticsCoolAgain - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:29 pm:
-There isn’t anything THAT important right now.-
Wrong - 1. Hospital Assessments and 2. Budget.
- Man-at-Arms - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:30 pm:
@ Dakota…
“No remote voting”….. um, didn’t a legislator trying to this while @ a parade?
- Mr. K. - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:34 pm:
Off topic — but of interest:
Message from Gov P. for state workers:
https://multimedia.illinois.gov/gov/Gov-Message-to-State-Employees-031820.html
- Been There - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:40 pm:
I voted for the minimum agenda, etc. If we went down the remote voting if would have to be under only an emergency.
Also, If they are doing remote voting I would like to see every amendment have the same 3 day reading requirement in each chamber as a bill does now.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:40 pm:
Voted for remote voting…. How in the world are we ever going to become a direct democracy if we can’t vote remotely?
- Dakota - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:44 pm:
–while @ a parade?–
Yes, and that was stupid as well.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:44 pm:
==How in the world are we ever going to become a direct democracy if we can’t vote remotely?==
We’re not, and will never be, a direct democracy. Our representative democracy is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution
- Lt Guv - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:45 pm:
But we’re not a direct democracy, we’re a representative democracy.
- @misterjayem - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:51 pm:
“Except lots didn’t self-quarantine. And if they don’t anticipate every problem that’s going to come up between now and May 31, they’ll have to come back.”
Any solution that requires that legislators a) all do the right thing, AND b) exercise foresight is doomed to tragic failure.
Remote voting, please.
– MrJM
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:55 pm:
I did not vote. Didn’t like the options.
Have them go to Springfield and be under an actual quarantine for the duration and until all test negative for 3 days like the cruise passengers. They could spend the time together to develop solutions.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:55 pm:
==Sessions of each house of the General Assembly and meetings of committees, joint committees and legislative commissions shall be open to the public.==
Live stream, remote voting.
It’s open to the public, so how is it not constitutional? It’s the same, if not more, access than most of the public has now. Most people cannot travel to the Capitol and spend the day under the dome, let alone multiple days. And, not all committee meetings are streamed.
With respect to vote verification, a legislator can speak up if their vote is incorrect. The votes are all part of the public record.
Legislators can enhance personal access by publishing emails and forwarding calls from their offices to their personal devices.
The one thing that is limited is F2F contact with people in the building (mostly lobbyists) and they can still call as many legislators as they like.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 1:59 pm:
=== With respect to vote verification, a legislator can speak up if their vote is incorrect. The votes are all part of the public record.===
The other side, also, has the right to verify… there’s the rub. It’s not just the legislator worrying they are Red or Green on a given bill that’s at play.
One member of each caucus in Springfield for transparency
With respect
- socialist state - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 2:03 pm:
== The one thing that is limited is F2F contact with people in the building (mostly lobbyists) and they can still call as many legislators as they like.==
You’d be surprised. Right now, many legislators aren’t accessible.
- Norseman - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 2:06 pm:
I voted for minimum…
I don’t believe the capacity exists at the present time for remote sessions. The technology is close, but the bandwidth and unique needs of verifying legitimate actions concerns me. Procedures are needed and rules amended to adapt for those procedures.
- WH Mess - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 2:20 pm:
Really? “shall be open to the public” is being interpreted as “must physically be in the capital and have members of the public physically present”? That’s such a failure of modernity, let alone creativity.
Stream the meetings. Like Durbin, requiring regular reauthorization to suspending physical presence makes sense.
Not actually addressing this is a pretty huge failure of our public security resiliency. What happens if there’s an terrorist scare on the afternoon on May 31st? Creates an incentive for disruption. Get something done here.
- GC - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 2:23 pm:
Voted remote. I think you can do it in a way that meets the Constitutional burden.
If not, to channel the spirit of Illinois’ favorite son, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We shouldn’t ask our legislators to put themselves in harm’s way over something *so* trivial as physical presence, especially when them doing so could incapacitate them further into this crisis.
In short, let someone sue.
- Dance Band on the Titanic - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 2:26 pm:
Remote. Why should they put themselves or their families at repeated risk?
- City Guy - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 2:39 pm:
I may have missed information but I haven’t seen anything on how municipalities and all the local government boards are dealing with board/council meetings. In particular, how do you meet open meeting act requirements?
- Froganon - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 2:57 pm:
My Board and other local, suburban boards are voting remotely. We approve our draft budget after 5 months of rangling. I voted remote. Live stream the legislature with a skeleton crew of people in the chamber. This virus requires extraordinary measures until we have a better handle on prevention and control.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 4:16 pm:
==You’d be surprised. Right now, many legislators aren’t accessible.==
They hide in the Capitol as well.
- Man-at-Arms - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 5:57 pm:
The founding fathers were not thinking of Covid-19 when writing up the Constitution ….
- Pundent - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 7:18 pm:
=The founding fathers were not thinking of Covid-19 when writing up the Constitution ….=
Pandemics and epidemic were far more common in the past. If anything our founding fathers might be quite surprised at how far modern medicine has come and that we’ve gone so long without a major disease.
- Flexible one - Thursday, Mar 19, 20 @ 10:18 pm:
Limited voting as remote voting is constitutionally questionable. No Christmas tree legislation and no “since we are already here let’s vote on a few hundred other bills”.