Votes are not often close in the state legislature. By the time a bill is on third reading the outcome is pretty much assured because everyone has agreed. On its face unanimity looks good and suggests legislators and committee processes are working well.
However, faced with important questions of value (whether fiscal or moral) I am inclined to believe that there should be conflict (used here in the productive not the pejorative sense) and that the absence of such, or its purposeful exile, should be read as a troubling sign.
More than half of the bills passed by the Illinois state legislature are agreed-to bills, meaning the final bill is acceptable to all parties, which certainly evinces the art of negotiation and compromise but can also mean that the final product has been transformed into something worthless using the very same skills.
I spoke with several state legislators yesterday about House Bill 7, the campaign reform bill that’s now awaiting the Governor’s signature. They all shared my sense of its inadequacies and echoed the lament of other legislators whose comments I have read: “It could be better but it’s better than nothing” and “This moment won’t come again.”
Doesn’t that sound defeatist? It did to me. Then there are the roll calls. House Bill passed the House 114 to 0. The Senate vote split almost perfectly down party lines, 36 to 22. If this was a once in a lifetime moment, the making of landmark legislation, the lock-step profiles of these roll calls sure don’t show it.
Much of the conflict that led up to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the kind that caused unbearable losses and left a permanent scar on the nation. But there was also another sort of conflict that emerged that was productive and evidenced the importance of the movement and the legislation it was inspiring. Democrats filibustered for months, citizens marched in the streets, and Senator Dirksen of Illinois, a Republican I will remind you, developed a strategy to gain enough support for cloture and later win the final vote 73 to 27.
Here’s the point: If unanimity had been one of Dirksen’s goals, the integrity of the Civil Rights Act would have been lost.
I’m reminded of this bill because it may be one the best case studies for dispelling the idea that unanimity should be a legislative prerequisite. It underscores the idea that “enough” votes, as opposed to all, may actually be better. Personally, the only time I value unanimity is in the context of a jury trial. But in politics, in governance, even in marriage, I really don’t think there’s much to recommend it.
Are we hopelessly averse to taking risks? Even in this moment when the support for reform couldn’t be stronger and louder, the integrity of House Bill 7 was lost to, among other things, the ideal of unanimity.
I’m starting a new wish list. I’d like a legislature wherein members are free to cast a dissenting vote without it risking their careers. More than one thought courses through the minds of our 118 State Representatives and 59 State Senators and I’d like to hear their differences, not just read blurbs crafted by their party or message managers. We need more dissent, more debate, more something (and, no, I am not at all suggesting we abandon the care and craft of consensus-making).
My husband’s countrymen and women have a once a week session where members of parliament put questions to the Prime Minister. Log on here for a sample. If you haven’t seen it before, it’s really worth a look if only to enable you to do this: Imagine House and Senate leadership facing off every week and taking questions from their respective members.
I know. That just gave you a little thrill, didn’t it? And why wouldn’t it? We have a Speaker who rarely talks, legislators who hold rebel cred but are nonetheless enthralled to leadership for fear of not getting the nod come election or mapping time. I understand. It seems a hell of a slog for an overnight stay. And leadership? They have their own burdens which is why an Illinois version of a Tony Blair / David Cameron dust-up might be just the thing to switch up the incentives and tone down the stricture of party leadership.
In the realm of politics and government, I think there are two general tendencies; one is toward competition and the other toward cooperation. I value both but recognize that either tendency set past the standard deviations imperils the quality of our politics and the welfare of our state.
We have been awfully quiet and agreeable and we are about to head off a cliff.
