Category Legislative Structure

Hi-ho, Hi-ho, It’s Off to Work We Go?

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund reports in his daily Political Diary ($) that several Republican Congressmen “are promoting longer work weeks punctuated by more lengthy and frequent breaks back home.” The House currently sits Tuesdays thru Thursdays, with Members spending the remainder of the time in their districts. This abbreviated work schedule, Fund writes, makes effective oversight of the Executive branch very difficult. And “[w]hen Republicans last controlled the U.S. House of Representatives, one of their bigger failings was allowing oversight of the executive branch to wither.” One suggestion, first floated back in July by Republican Rob Bishop of Utah,  is to have one week in D.C., followed by a week back in the district, which “would be more time than we spend here now,” said Bishop. Majority Leader-apparent Eric Cantor reportedly favors such a plan. Fund reports that he “found that many freshmen are already lamenting the weekly commute back to their districts [and would welcome a chance to do real legislating for a whole week and then have more flexibility to hold town halls and field hearings back in their districts.”

Perhaps an even better idea would be to sit for six weeks, with a three-week break in between sessions and no sittings during the summer or in December unless exigent circumstances dictate otherwise. Most state legislatures meet for a few months and then adjourn for the rest of the year, or as in Texas, for the rest of the biennium.

I’ve Been in this Movie Before

Paul Burka, Texas Monthly columnist and BurkaBlog author, asks whether the current Texas budget crisis mist be better managed thru annual budget sessions. The Texas Legislature only meets for 140 days in odd-numbered years; the Texas Constitution generally requires the Legislature to pass a balanced budget (any deficit spending requires a super-majority of each House of the Legislature and, as a practical matter, hasn’t ever happened). As the 2011 session looms on the horizon, Burka notes that “most people involved in writing the state budget have no idea about the size of the shortfall,” yet state agencies are being told to cut their budgets by 10 percent with another 15 percent on top of that estimated to be necessary. Burka thinks that a “thirty-day budget session in June 2012, three months before the end of the biennium, would allow budget writers to prepare a budget based on the latest economic information” and that the Texas constitution should institutionalize annual budget sessions.

This is an idea that comes up regularly in the political science literature and just about every time the Legislature faces huge deficits. Budget writers don’t like it for reasons unknown; when House Appropriations Chairman Rob Junell proposed a wholesale revision of the Texas Constitution in 1999, he tellingly did not include a provision for annual budget sessions. One reason may be that legislators don’t want to have to come back; since they only make $600 per month, plus a per diem when in session, they would have to take away more time for their everyday jobs that pay the bills. Employers don’t look too kindly on Members always taking off to go to Austin; at least they can be assured it’s only every two years. To expect employers, business partners, clients, etc., to understand that you’re going to be gone for the first three months of every year might be a little too much.

The only time in modern history that the idea has been seriously forwarded was the proposed Constitution of 1975, which failed at the ballot box. So while Burka’s idea makes some sense, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

The Not-So-Large House

Richard Winger reports that “a 3-judge U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Mississippi ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require a larger number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives.” The court rejected arguments that the current statutory limit of 435 representatives “provides great inequality between states. [For example,] Wyoming has one seat for 495,304 persons, but Montana has one seat for 905,316 persons.  Therefore, an individual voter in Wyoming has more than twice the voting power of a voter in Montana, for U.S. House representation.” The case is Clemons v U.S. Department of Commerce, and the post has a link to the full opinion.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.