Wisconsin Senate to convene without Democrats

Wisconsin's Senate majority leader says the chamber will convene to pass nonspending bills and act on appointments Tuesday even if minority Democrats remain out of state.

Republican Sen. Scott Fitzgerald told The Associated Press today that he would be reviewing which bills and appointees to schedule for action. He says senators can't wait around "twiddling their thumbs" until the Democrats return.

...snip...

Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller says Democrats will not return until Gov. Scott Walker is ready to compromise on his labor proposal.

http://www.rrstar.com/carousel/x253216306/Majority-leader-Wisconsin-Senate-to-convene-without-Democrats

Most Senate actions require a mere majority.

It's only financial legislation that requires 3/5.

You or the Democratic senators who said they were leaving so there wouldn't be a quorum.

Decisions, decisions.

It's pretty clear.

There are two cloture requirements. One for most legislation and one for fiscal matters.

Republicans have enough votes for one threshold and not enough for the other. The bill currently being protested is a budget bill that clearly requires the higher threshold. Not every provision within that bill is financial in nature.

The problem is that the things that we're most concerned about are not financial... they just happen to be part of a larger bill that is.


All of this is really academic in nature, because it isn't possible for the Demcoratic senators to stay out of the state for two years. Their actions are not intended to provide a permanent victory. They're a delaying action to give the protestors time to influence public opinion and shame the republicans into backing down.

Now this???

What is YOUR agenda here?

I'm over this bullshit.

I'll say it again. The senators said they were leaving because of the quorum rule. I believe them. Period.

That's really the difference you're seeing. I don't allow my positions to influence my perception of reality. Of course... that's a ridiculous claim, but it is at least my objective.

You would like to win (as would I), so you imagine whatever combination of circumstances are necessary for that victory.

I, OTOH, have been part of this game long enough to know that sometimes victory is only found on the other side of defeat. Sometimes the other side has the power and all you can do is ram it down their throats the next time they go before the voters.

These things have been posted all over DU more than once, been reported in the media (including at the link I just posted in the OP), and are public documents that take less time to google than your reply took to type... But you don't like what I had to say, so you feel more comfortable assuming that I'm biased against your position and just making things up as I go along. Your claims of an agenda are unfounded and, frankly, unfair.

The relevant portions of the state constitution are clear: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/wisconst.pdf

Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. SECTION 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

Vote on fiscal bills; quorum. SECTION 8. On the passage in either house of the legislature of any law which imposes, continues or renews a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues or renews an appropriation of public or trust money, or releases, discharges or commutes a claim or demand of the state, the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shall be duly entered on the journal; and three−fifths of all the members elected to such house shall in all such cases be required to constitute a quorum therein.

The poster who suggested that you were a troll obviously owes you an apology. I wonder if you'll get one.

I don't see it.

If you do, alert. That's against DU rules.

Someone with an anti-teacher agenda... but not a troll.

I feel so much better. :-)

Last I heard, torture was illegal too. And 'preemptively' invading sovereign nations.

They can't resume the session without it. But who knows, the Assembly Republicans tried to have a vote before the Democrats arrived (and before the scheduled time) just the other day. They seem to be making up their own rules as they go along.

Isn't that how the brownshirts stop the count in Florida?

Typical republican. Thinks rules don't apply to him.

n/t

I gave you the relevant sections of the state constitution. What's left to debate?

Tell ABC News. I'm sure they'll rush to correct their error.

What error? The article doesn't even address the issue.

Here's a relevant piece on an ABC channel that does:

Senate Democrats acknowledged that the 19 Republicans could pass any item that doesn't spend state money in their absence. The budget-repair bill they have been blocking requires a quorum of 20 senators to pass, while other measures require only a simple majority of the chamber's 33 members.

http://www.ktnv.com/story/14065434/walker-senate-dems-need-to-return-to-wis-do-job

The Senate Democrats have acknowledged my point... when will you?

I'm missing where you admit that you were wrong. Is it hidden in that thread somewhere? This OP deals with the Senate coming back into session to act on other bills and a few posters (including yourself) claiming that they couldn't do that. They can.

I didn't predict that they would split the bill up and pass just the non-financial portions... merely that they can. They also have the ability to begin punishing the democratic senators almost at their whim... but they're unlikely to do that either.

It's not like this is a new revelation for them. They knew they could do it as the democrats were walking out the door (though it would take a couple days to work through the system). Doing so risks impacting public opinion when they think the current scenario works in their favor.

It takes a majority of a quorum to pass a bill. I presume (but don't know) that as with most of the country, there are some far-right tea-party types and some more moderate forces within the Republican caucus. They need 17 Senators for a quorum (for nonfinancial bills). They need only a majority of those who show up in order to pass a bill. The far right could start pushing legislation that couldn't even pass the existing senate (because 4-5 republicans would think it was too extreme), but the bill would get through because there aren't any democrats there to vote with those few republicans.

Lukily, the House is there to keep it from getting too wild.

than to slow them down.

Financial bills need a 3/5 quorum, non-financial bills need 1/2.

They can kill collective bargaining any time they want to.

Only public pressure can stop them.

Stripping collective bargaining rights is not, in and of iteself, a financial act.

They can write a new bill with just that provision any time they want to.

IF they're willing to thumb their noses at the public.

their actions? Not.

Their goal is to slow down the process and give the protestors time to influence public opinion. The public needs to scare the republicans into backing down.

It's also the case that there ARE plenty of financial measures within the bill that republicans can't act on without the 3/5ths quorum.

Even with those, however, a permanent victory still requires the public to convince the republicans that they have to back down. It isn't as if they can stay out of the state for the full two years.

dee dee dee. And Unions' decisions are always financial for their membership. Do you belong to a union?

And Unions' decisions are always financial for their membership.

Of course. But that doesn't make any law dealing with a union a financial bill. The state constitution defines what qualifies. It has to be a law that raises a tax, spends those revenues, obligates the state to a debt, or adds/releases such an obligation from others.

The bill they're currently debating is a budget bill that clearly qualifies, but a hypothetical bill that only reoved collective bargaining rights would not (despite the fact that it could have a long-term financial impact on union members).

Do you belong to a union?

I used to, but one is not currently available.

Your question raises a new concern, however. If you think that people are incapable of a proper perspective on these kinds of issues without being union members, then we've already lost, since union membership is at historic lows.

the Dems couldn't stop anything anyway--the Democratic Senators need to resist any pressure to come back...I have hope that there will be 3 Republican senators that will show some courage and stop this mess. They would be heroes.

and see how many Repubs have gotten wobbly in the knees??

Why did the Democrats need to leave the State? Can't they just Filibuster like the Republicans did every single day last year? Or are State rules different than the U.S. Senate?

:shrug:

The term really refers to the use of any parliamentary delaying tactic used to slow down or kill a bill.

I think these 14 have a bright future ahead if they continue to serve the people.

They could strip out the collective bargaining rule changes and pass it separately without a 3/5 quorum. The question is are they gutsy enough to pull something like that? My hunch is they will.

It looks like both sides assume that public opinion will turn in their favor by letting this play out.

They actually have a number of trump cards that they could play. The Constitution says that they can compell our guys' attendence "in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide" which means that they can start to punish the democrats for their absense. But I don't think that they do that either.

before the Republicans are brought to court.

The Democrats may not like it, but they did lose the election. Elections have consequences.

Elections do have consequences and unless the final vote percentages are an absolute blowout for the winner, a lot of people are going to be very antagonistic towards their agenda.

I'm not sure who has more standing than the state legislature already has... and the court wouldn't have any more authority over them than the republican majority (which can punish them any time they're ready to deal with the public opinion repurcusions.

It's the legislature's job to figure out ways to force its members to attend, not the courts.

from the budget bill and tack it on as an amendment to another piece of legislation.

That would almost ensure that more than a few Republicans faced a recall and give the Dems a huge issue to run on in the next election.

The fact that DUers are just learning about the possibility doesn't mean that Senators on both sides didn't know it was possible from day one.

I think it's safe to say that Republicans are more comfortable with the current state of affairs than they think they might be after taking that risk. They might try to force it if they see things slipping away from them, but that's not imminent.