Since Republicans have become the majority in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, there has been a marked increase in the passing of unconstitutional bills which have resulted in outside organizations suing the state to stop the legislation.
Guess who pays for those lawsuits? It's the Oklahoma taxpayer who foots the bill for the defense regardless of who wins and if the plaintiff wins they pay their costs too. Sadly the legislator who introduced the offending legislation goes on their happy way without any penalty.
We maintain that all legislation introduced should be screened by the legislative staff for federal and state constitutional validity and if the legislation shows any indication of not being up to constitutional muster, it should be mandated that the Rules Committee in the legislature must review it before it can go to a vote of the legislature. The Rules Committee must then provide debate on both sides of the constitutional issue and can only send the bill forward if it receives a two thirds vote by that committee. This legislative rules change would save Oklahoma taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Legislative action of any kind already costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars for hearings, paperwork, and documentation. When constitutionally suspect legislation is adopted and signed into law, hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent by government attorneys defending the measure before the Courts strike it down. If the courts strike it down, the state most usually pays for the attorney fees of the plaintiff as well.
Changing the rules to require a two thirds vote of the Rules Committee would avoid silly partisan debate over proposals which are beyond the power of the Legislature. This would also avoid grandstanding by partisan legislators who's only real purpose is to beef up their base.
Frankly it might also be wise to even penalize lawmakers who introduce unconstitutional bills that fail to obtain the necessary support in the Rules Committee. Perhaps by reducing the limit on the number of bills they are allowed to introduce each session by 5 for ever 1 denied by the Committee?
Oklahoma legislators spend way too much time debating and passing legislation that really has no relationship to legislative responsibility. If this rule was implemented, it would be a lot easier for them to get their business completed by the mandatory May 25th adjournment date. Instead of getting BOGGED down in issues that are really out of their scope of responsibility.
Guess who pays for those lawsuits? It's the Oklahoma taxpayer who foots the bill for the defense regardless of who wins and if the plaintiff wins they pay their costs too. Sadly the legislator who introduced the offending legislation goes on their happy way without any penalty.
We maintain that all legislation introduced should be screened by the legislative staff for federal and state constitutional validity and if the legislation shows any indication of not being up to constitutional muster, it should be mandated that the Rules Committee in the legislature must review it before it can go to a vote of the legislature. The Rules Committee must then provide debate on both sides of the constitutional issue and can only send the bill forward if it receives a two thirds vote by that committee. This legislative rules change would save Oklahoma taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Legislative action of any kind already costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars for hearings, paperwork, and documentation. When constitutionally suspect legislation is adopted and signed into law, hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent by government attorneys defending the measure before the Courts strike it down. If the courts strike it down, the state most usually pays for the attorney fees of the plaintiff as well.
Changing the rules to require a two thirds vote of the Rules Committee would avoid silly partisan debate over proposals which are beyond the power of the Legislature. This would also avoid grandstanding by partisan legislators who's only real purpose is to beef up their base.
Frankly it might also be wise to even penalize lawmakers who introduce unconstitutional bills that fail to obtain the necessary support in the Rules Committee. Perhaps by reducing the limit on the number of bills they are allowed to introduce each session by 5 for ever 1 denied by the Committee?
Oklahoma legislators spend way too much time debating and passing legislation that really has no relationship to legislative responsibility. If this rule was implemented, it would be a lot easier for them to get their business completed by the mandatory May 25th adjournment date. Instead of getting BOGGED down in issues that are really out of their scope of responsibility.
I've always wondered, how do they determine whether to have a vote on a bill, and the rules they go by to determine on making a bill law without the people's consent. Who makes that decision? What is it based on? Do you know? Have a great 4th of July. Nancy
ReplyDeleteriddlemedoooo@yahoo.com
Here's a link to the Oklahoma House site which has a snynopsis of the path a bill has to travel before it becomes law.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.okhouse.gov/Information/Info_BillCrse.aspx
I'm afraid you will have to copy and paste the url because I can't figure out how to make it a link.