Anyone who has ever run a business knows just what to do with slackers: If your employees sit around and pick up their paychecks without actually doing their jobs, they can expect to last about as long as an unpopular
second-term governor in California. Unfortunately, the same standard does not apply to elected officials in legislative houses across the nation. Increasingly, state politicians show up but do not vote on controversial bills that would place them at odds with the public or powerful interest groups.
In political parlance, the practice of a politician intentionally leaving the room during a vote, or staying silent when called upon to vote, is “taking a walk.” Because a nonvote is typically the same as a vote against the legislation—
without the consequences of going on the record—serial walkers are increasingly responsible for the failure of state legislatures to address many pervasive problems.
For example, a 2004 study conducted by graduate
students at the University of Southern California found that nonvoting played a role in the outcome of more than two-thirds of bills defeated in the California legislature in 2001–2002—the period studied—and was the deciding factor in the defeat of more than one-third. The study found that, on average, bills failed with 36.3 percent opposed, 29.5 percent in favor and 34.3 percent abstaining. Committee decisions were more likely than floor votes to result in walks because they were less visible to the media and public.
Passive Pols
The USC students also reviewed voting rules in 43 states and found that in 27 houses and 30 senates, the implication is that members must vote unless there is a conflict of interest. Conversations with legislative staff in those states, however, suggest that enforcement is, at best, rare. The California Assembly has a rule requiring members to vote unless excused by a majority of the body. This is probably the only rule in America enforced less than the no-jaywalking ordinance in Manhattan.
|
