The Rules Committee heard testimony Jan. 16 on nearly two dozen proposed changes to the Legislature’s permanent rules.
The permanent rules govern the legislative process and are adopted at the beginning of each biennium. The 22 proposals offered a variety of changes, including one to elect chairpersons of the 14 standing committees by roll-call vote. Those votes currently are cast by secret ballot.
Central City Sen. Loren Lippinicott, chairperson of the Rules Committee, offered the proposal. He said both the public and members of the Legislature have a right to know how senators vote when electing chairpersons.
“This rule change creates a culture of transparency and accountability in all we do,” he said.
Allie Bush, founder of Nebraskans Against Government Overreach, testified in support the proposed change.
“We should get to know who you guys are voting for every single step of the way,” Bush said. “There shouldn’t be secret votes.”
Speaking in opposition was Timothy Melcher. Testifying on his own behalf, Melcher said public ballots for leadership positions might put pressure on senators to vote for members of their own party even if they aren’t the most qualified candidate.
“This would compromise the nonpartisan spirit in our body,” he said.
Several of the proposals revived or expanded on attempts from the 2024 session to address how the required number of votes for cloture — a motion that ceases debate and forces a vote on a bill — is calculated.
Currently, a cloture motion requires approval by a two-thirds majority of the 49 members of the Legislature, or 33 votes.
A proposal from Omaha Sen. Kathleen Kauth would retain the two-thirds threshold but would change the requirement to two-thirds of the members present who are voting yes or no on the question of invoking cloture.
The change would mean that members who are present in the legislative chamber but do not cast a yes or no vote would not be included in the calculus for reaching the required two-thirds majority.
Kauth said she understands that there may be strategic reasons for a senator to refrain from voting, but that doing so should not be without consequences.
“It’s our responsibility as senators to make our constituents’ voices heard through us and if we choose to sit aside and not vote on something, there needs to be some understanding that there [is] a price to pay for that,” she said.
Bush testified in favor of the proposal.
“We elected you guys to come down here and vote yes or no,” she said.
Lippincott brought two proposals to alter the existing cloture rule. One option would retain the current two-thirds majority requirement, but would exclude members who are present but not voting. It also would require a minimum of 25 affirmative votes for a successful cloture motion.
The second Lippincott proposal simply would require a three-fifths majority, or 30 votes, for a successful cloture motion.
Lippincott said the Legislature needs to evolve in light of recent sessions when those in the political minority made extensive use of the current rules to try and control the pace of debate.
“Filibustering really slowed down the whole legislative process,” he said.
No one testified in favor of either Lippincott proposal. Opposed to both was Heidi Uhing, director of public policy at Civic Nebraska.
While impatience with the current process is understandable, Uhing said, the current 33 vote threshold provides for a thorough vetting of bills.
“Legislating is intended to be a deliberative process, with the goal of producing better quality legislation through debate,” she said. “Asking questions and allowing time for analysis should not necessarily be seen as counterproductive or a waste of time.”
Also considered was a Lippincott proposal to allow committee chairpersons to vote to exclude the press from executive sessions — in which the committee considers and votes on measures they have heard.
Under the current rules, media members are allowed to attend executive sessions and report on the proceedings.
“We want transparency and accountability for our voting while maintaining the freedom to brainstorm and have a protected, creative process, which often happens in executive sessions,” Lippincott said.
No one testified in favor of the proposed rule change.
Korby Gilbertson, representing Media Nebraska, spoke in opposition. Journalists are the conduit that brings information from the Capitol to the citizenry, she said.
“Important public business should be conducted in public,” Gilbertson said.
Among other rule changes offered at the hearing were proposals to:
• remove the current 20 bill maximum for individual bill introduction each session that was adopted last year, offered by Omaha Sen. Terrell McKinney;
• adopt a method of calling a member to order for engaging in speech not directly related to the bill or motion under consideration, offered by Hastings Sen. Dan Lonowski;
• remove party affiliation stipulations for membership on the legislative Redistricting Committee, offered by Lippincott;
• combine the Agriculture and Natural Resources committees and create a Technology Committee, offered by Kauth;
• eliminate the ability to offer a reconsideration motion on an amendment or motion that failed if at least four-fifths, or 40 senators, voted against the motion or amendment, offered by Bellevue Sen. Rick Holdcroft;
• require submission of a bill’s statement of intent within one calendar day after its introduction, offered by Sumner Sen. Teresa Ibach; and
• allow for collective consideration of certain gubernatorial appointees, offered by Blair Sen. Ben Hansen.
The committee took no immediate action on any of the proposed rule changes. Debate on any changes forwarded to the floor by the committee is expected to begin Jan. 22.
In a recent session of the unicameral legislature, lawmakers discussed potential changes to the legislative rules that govern their proceedings. The proposed changes aim to streamline the legislative process, improve transparency, and enhance efficiency in lawmaking.
One of the key proposed rule changes is the introduction of electronic voting for all legislative actions. This would eliminate the need for time-consuming roll call votes and make the voting process more efficient. Additionally, the use of electronic voting would provide a more accurate record of lawmakers’ votes and ensure greater accountability.
Another proposed rule change is the establishment of a committee to review and streamline the legislative calendar. This committee would be responsible for scheduling legislative sessions, hearings, and other activities in a way that maximizes efficiency and allows lawmakers to prioritize important legislation.
Additionally, lawmakers discussed the possibility of implementing term limits for legislative leadership positions. This change would promote turnover and fresh perspectives in leadership roles, ensuring that a diverse range of voices are represented in the decision-making process.
Overall, the proposed rule changes are intended to modernize the legislative process and make it more responsive to the needs of the people. Lawmakers will continue to debate and refine these proposals in the coming weeks, with the goal of implementing changes that will benefit both lawmakers and the constituents they serve. Stay tuned for updates on the progress of these proposed rule changes in the unicameral legislature.
Tags:
