Only particular example I have: in a recent budget override attempt in Alaska’s state gov 22 representatives didn’t show up to vote in support of the veto override
In: Other
If it’s a controversial bill or one they don’t care much about it lowers the risk of controversy if it becomes a, well, controversial bill. It’s all about being liked. Politics, babey
If they know that there aren’t enough votes to block a bill, and also their constituency supports them to vote yes, they can simply not vote so there opposition cannot say “Senator XXXX voted against YYYYY”.
What might have happened there is this:
Every legislative body requires something called a *quorum,* or a minimum number of its members, to be present in order for the body to conduct official business.
If the absence of those 22 representatives was sufficient to deny quorum, then no business can be conducted and the matter can’t even be considered.
This could be a tactical choice; for example, in Oregon recently, the GOP members of the legislature had enough people to deny quorum, but the Democrats had the majority, so the only way for the GOP to stop a vote on a particular bill they found odious was to simply not show up.
Plausible deniability. Some bills are no win.
In America, our legislators don’t actually read bills. They have staffs to give them bullet points and offer suggestions as to whether they should support it. They are also constantly running for re-election so they might not have time to travel to the capital to vote.
To be clear, in the specific instance you cited, what happened was that Alaska’s legislature passed a budget, and the governor vetoed it. Like most legislatures, the Alaska legislature can override the governor’s veto; somewhat uniquely, the Alaska legislature requires both houses to sit in a single body to override, and requires a 3/4 majority to override because it was a spending (appropriations) bill. Since 22 was more than 1/4, they couldn’t override (so quorum isn’t an issue in that case).
As to why, I see the legislature is part time, so potentially at least a few didn’t want to leave their jobs for the special session. Otherwise, the other comments about not wanting a veto on your record and the like applies.
“Quorum busting” is a time-honored tactic, but it’s uncommon for several reasons:
1: you have to get enough people to be absent along with you that the legislature fails to meet quorum. If only a few people bail out, the vote will go on without them.
2: your political opponents will accuse you of cowardice and failing to do the job you were elected to do. Not a good look.
3: many legislatures have the power to order the cops to find you and drag you back by force. This doesn’t make fleeing impossible of course, but you can’t just chill in your office.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Quorum_busting.htm
So lawmakers have several things that motivate their actions (like enacting legislation that has policy they like, increasing their individual power, and so on). Of all the motivations that lawmakers have, being reelected is considered the strongest of a lawmakers motivation (this argument has strong evidence in political science but some scholars disagree). So lets apply this logic to the lawmakers in Alaska, 22 representatives did not show up for the veto override vote. These 22 representatives were also supportive of the governors veto. Right now the blame for the budget cuts will fall on the governor. If these 22 showed up and voted yes (for a veto override) they likely would have faced a strong challenge in a primary election. People who vote in primaries tend to have less moderate political views, thus the representatives would be blamed for not supporting the governor and political party. So those 22 representatives had a relatively high likelihood of losing in a primary challenge. Say these 22 representatives showed up and voted no to the veto override, then they would share responsibility for the veto. This veto has a considerable likelihood of becoming generally unpopular. Voting yes means that they would likely survive a primary challenge but they would then face a high chance of losing in a general election. So in conclusion, if they vote for the override they might lose in a primary election, if they vote no they might lose in a general election. If they don’t show up at all they can deflect blame to be on the governor. Not voting is the best option these representative have in addition to whatever quorum busting there might be.
Latest Answers