My friend, conservative Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, is in the political fight of a lifetime, running for an Orange County State Senate seat open due to the departure from the legislature of Dick Ackerman, my State Senator. Walters is running against Anaheim City Councilman Harry Sidhu, who is spending a LOT of money sending out negative mail, and has a particular nasty commercial trashing Mimi that is running heavily on cable television. In that spot, the announcer hurls what is a scathing attack in Republican Orange County — “She voted to put liberal Democrat Fabian Nunez in charge of the Assembly… Twice!”
Is it true? Did she? No. But read on… But I will say up front that Mimi did something that every other Assembly Republican has done… Buckle up your seatbelt for this information that I am going to share, because it makes one scratch their head to hear that this actually happens in the State Assembly…
Let me start that by saying that in Washington, D.C., the vote to elect the Speaker goes like this. Each political party, the Republicans and the Democrats, place into nomination the leader of their party’s conference (in this cycle, that was Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi for the Democrats, and Congressman John Boehner for the Republicans). Predictably, because Democrats outnumber Republicans in the House, Pelosi won the vote, and as we all know, she is Speaker of the House. Of course, everyone knew what the outcome would be, but still an official vote is held. In this way, Democrats are held accountable for everything that Ms. Pelosi does during her tenure, and on the other side of the isle, Republicans can demonstrate that they had a different choice, and literally can say “Don’t blame us if you don’t like what she is doing, we didn’t vote her in as Speaker.”
So far as I can tell, that is the system that used to be in place in the California legislature’s lower chamber up until sometime after Republican Curt Pringle’s brief time as Speaker in the mid-90’s.
Let me tell the end of this story first, which is not my typical style of telling a tale… Please read this carefully… For at least a decade, every time the State Assembly has elected a new liberal Democrat to be Speaker, the vote has been a voice vote, and UNANIMOUS. Or I guess it would be more accurate to say that the members of the legislature are asked if there is any objection to electing (fill in the blank) Robert Hertzberg/Herb Wesson/Antonio Villaraigosa/Fabian Nunez by acclamation (which is to say that the Chair announces that, without objection, the motion carries — and no one objects — it’s a voice vote). Near as I can tell, in a decade no Republican has raised an objection.
Not one Republican has asked that the official record reflect a vote of “NO” from them.
This is even more unbelievable – at no point in the process does the name of the Assembly Republicans’ choice for Speaker, their leader, even have their name placed into nomination.
But wait, there is more – it is also a part of this “tradition” to have the aforementioned Assembly Republican Leader actually second the nomination of the left-wing Democrat who is about to be elected Speaker by the entire body, Republicans and Democrats all.
What an absolutely TERRIBLE way of doing business in a two-party system. This is a tradition that needs to end this Tuesday when Democrats place into nomination another in a long line of liberal Democrats, Karen Bass, to be the next Speaker of the Assembly.
Of course Bass will be elected – Democrats hold a majority of the seats in the lower chamber, and one can reasonably expect that if called upon to do so, they would all affirmatively vote for Bass (Democrats have already sorted this issue out in their private caucus meetings, just as Republicans in their private caucus meetings have tapped Mike Villines as their Leader).
But Bass should not receive EVEN ONE Republican vote for her election – nor, frankly, should she either expect one, nor should she be upset or put-off is she doesn’t get one. That is because the name of Mike Villines, as the GOP Leader, should be placed in nomination alongside that of Bass, and Villines’ Republican colleagues should vote for him.
Each member, when called upon in a roll call vote, should call out their vote for their respective party’s candidate for the top spot, and then Bass can assume her office. In an appropriate “concession” speech, Villines can talk about how Republicans are willing to work with Bass and her leadership team for the betterment of California, or just take the opportunity to lay out a Republican vision for California – or both.
We have a two-party system in the United States and in California, and it is just wrong for Republicans to put their “stamp of approval” on the other party’s choice. It is wrong for Republicans to stay silent and allow a “de facto” affirmative vote take place that pretty much means that Republicans approve of a liberal Democrat being Speaker.
How did this “tradition” start? This process where Republicans participate in the election of the Democrat Speaker? Some have said that it began because, once upon a time, there was a lot of personal acrimony between the Democrats and Republicans, and this was seen as some sort of “good will gesture” – good grief! Some others have said that this “tradition” magically coincided with additional staff and benefits being conferred to the minority party – ugh! No one has gone “on the record” with me on exactly why Republicans started and participate in a tradition of affirming the other party’s leadership. But many, many to whom I spoke in preparation for this column told me they wished Republicans who stop this practice.
But there is also an important practical point to be made here, as is being demonstrated by Harry Sidhu’s attacks on Mimi Walters. Inside the building, this kind of “nicey-nice” back-slapping might be considered “congeniality” – but down in Orange County (in the case of Walters), the effects are very real. I have had to spend a lot of time explaining this whole process to dozens of GOPers who have asked me in person, by phone, or via e-mail why Mimi Walters would ever support Fabian Nunez for Speaker. For those patient enough to hear the whole story – they aren’t any happier. When I am done they understand that Mimi does not support Fabian Nunez for dog catcher. But by and large they are just disappointed at “the club” in the Capitol. Mimi is an outstanding conservative leader — one of the best in Sacramento. She should not have to be enduring this because of a bad precedent set before she arrived in Sacramento.
Before this Tuesday’s vote for Speaker, Karen Bass and Mike Villines should sit down to talk about how things are going to go on the floor. When they do, Villines should state that it is his intention that he and his caucus will be extremely cordial and gracious to Bass (after all , I’m sure her family and close friends will be on hand for the big occasion). That said, Villines should also “lead and protect” his own caucus by indicating that in the “largely ceremonial” vote for Speaker, he will be having his own name placed into nomination, and that any speeches on his behalf will all be positive about himself and his party and his party’s ideas, nothing negative about Bass. Then all 32 Assembly Republicans can proudly cast their vote affirmatively for Mike Villines. Yes, he will lose that vote. And then life in the legislature will go on…
And I should add this thought. I am not in the State Assembly myself, but if I were I would never ever, not in a million years, let a vote of acclamation go by to unanimously elect a Democrat to be Speaker. I would vote no, and mean it. I would not, however ceremonial some might feel it is, want to be a part of electing a liberal to run the State Assembly.
It’s time to end a tradition that never should have been started.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
There have been multiple instances of a speaker being elected both with bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. In fact that was the rule, not the exception. It is only recently that the vote for Speaker divided itself along party lines.
The reason for the tradition was the belief that voter don’t choose their elected officials by party, they choose individuals and all members should have a say in how the Assembly is run. That used to be the tradition way back when in the House of Representatives also (Read about Joe Cannon if you want an example of bipartisan alliances to oust a Speaker) and only changed in the 1930’s. Even now the election of the speaker is traditionally ratified by a unanimous voice vote.
In the Assembly, the reason stated by most Republicans for participating in electing a Democratic Speaker was that the position had to do with how the legislature was run and by having a role, they were able to have some say in the process. That is also a belief stated by Democrats on the few occasions when they have had to participate in choosing a Republican Speaker (Bob Monaghan).
I think John is wrong in what he is hoping for, but it clearly is a point worth debate by elected officials. The only thing that should be considered is that right now Republican participation has ensured a lot of things like Republicans getting to pick their own members of committees (Way back when Speakers would do things like put minority party members from bigger cities on the Agriculture committee so they had no say on anything of importance to their constituents) and limit the number of minority staffers that are hired (right now there is a formula based on the number of members of each party) as well as probably being more vindictive about things like office size and the use of Assembly facilities. This of course can all be a two way street, so maybe that in itself would be enough to stop craziness, but I am not so sure it wouldn’t increase it and more on target, it attacks the central idea of American Government which is that we have more that binds us together than separates us and that our representatives can work together not just to highlight their differences before elections, but also to seek out common ground in conflicting ideas. I think you lose a lot of that when you promote the idea of party loyalty as trumping everything else.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon and Tom:
Your discussion made me curious about what happened the last time a Republican (Curt Pringle) was elected Speaker.
I found this story by Dan Weintraub and Marc Lifhser in the January 5, 1996 edition of the Orange County Register:
“The Assembly on Thursday elected Republican Curt Pringle speaker and took the first steps to dismantle a political and legislative machine built during more than 25 years of Democratic rule, 14 under Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
“This is a fulfillment of the people’s mandate,” Pringle said after he was elected on a 40-37 vote over fellow Republican Brian Setencich of Fresno, the only GOP lawmaker not to vote for Pringle.”
Apparently things were not so “Congenial” in 1996!
May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Should this situation apply in the State Senate as well, when they choose the President Pro Tem?
The Republicans nominate Cogdill and Democrats nominate Steinberg, then let the chips (votes) fall where they may.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
You are correct. Things have gotten a lot more partisan. However, I would still point out that very few speakers at any time have been chosen either with just unanimous party line support or even an undivided caucus of their own members.
Probably the best example of the issues involved from your side of the aisle would have been the “Gang of Five” challenge to Willie Brown and the worst example would have been Paul Horcher.
In the “gang of five” challenge, a group of Democrats who wanted a more moderate Assembly created a coalition across party lines to elect one of their members (Charles Calderon) Speaker.
Part of the deal included things like allowing the Republican caucus to decide which of it’s members filled minority spots on committee’s and giving Republicans a fairer allotment of house resources and a promise that committees would bring up Republican legislation for discussion rather than simply not allowing a hearing on any issues that might reflect badly on Democrats.
The “Gang of Five” lost when several Republicans followed John’s logic and refused to vote for any Democrat even though the caucus as a whole supported the deal that created the coalition.
Some people argued at the time that it was because several of those members who refused to vote for a Democrat were personally close to Willie Brown that was the deciding factor and I think it’s safe to assume that had some influence on the decisionmaking.
If you go back through the history of California politics, you can find numerous examples of cases where members of the minority party in the legislature were able to build alliances with the majority to get some of their issues dealt with and in the few times that have been more partisan, we have seen California hurt by gameplaying like a Speaker appointing the weakest member of the other party to a high profile committee so that they would look bad in the press while making their arguments. On top of the obvious problems with that type of bickering, you also develop a mentality of wanting to be on the majority side, so special interests start playing to the majority party no matter how much they disagree with it’s politics and you create a mentality of playing up to the powerful which is not good government.
The flip side to all this is the Paul Horcher situation where Republicans had just won a majority in the Assembly in part due to voter dislike of the Assembly as an institution and Paul Horcher a member who both got along personally with Willie Brown and had a strong dislike of the Republican leader at the time due to previous political fights wound up casting the deciding vote to reelect Willie Brown as Speaker.
Many people were outraged and Pete Wilson who was particularly offended financed a successful recall. I think John’s position could be summarized by what happened in the Horcher case, because he feels that if the people are supposed to decide who governs them and one side wins the election, the other side shouldn’t be able to steal it in the back rooms. Willie Brown was well enough liked by the members of the Assembly that if there had been a secret ballot, he would have won in a walk, but this certainly was a clear case where the people of California wanted a change and didn’t get it.
But it’s still a question of balancing the positives and negatives when you decide which side of this argument you want to come down on. I personally think that forcing candidates for Speaker to negotiate with members of the other party keeps the Assembly functioning in a fair manner and stops more bickering than it creates, bickering that could very easily hurt the people of California. JMO!
May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Tom:
An excellent explication of California history.
The negative example that dwells on our side is what happened in 1980,
when Republicans followed your theory, and created a bipartian coalition
to prevent Leo McCarthy from becoming Assembly Speaker.
The beneficiary of this bipartisan effort? His name is Willie Brown, whose
14-year Speakership set new highs for partisanship.
Isn’t it understandable that Conservatives remember the misdirected Good
Intentions of 1980, and vow, “Never Again!”
May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I think the point that is the most important to emphasize is that if the party out of power wants to ultimately be in power — it needs to be running a contrast campaign 24/7. I have been very impressed with the contrast campaigns that Senator Cogdill and Assemblyman Villines have been leading on the issues surrounding the state budget. It is clear that the two parties have a different approach to solving our state’s fiscal calamity. I’m just saying that the way that we handle the election of Speaker presents yet another important opportunity to stress the contrast. By everyone supporting the Democrat, it makes it more murky and hard to explain how we would do things differently. And as we’ve seen in the Sidhu ads, provides fodder for mischief.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Both are good points although a lot of Republicans would argue that their interests did better under Willie Brown than they would have with the alternative (whom I supported).
But John makes a fair point. It all does make the issues murkier for average voters. I would suggest that is more in line with the founders vision of people voting at the local level for those they know and trust, but that’s my opinion.
But more on point is the recent selection of Karen Bass as Speaker and perhaps the upcoming selection of a new Speaker. Depending on who the next Supervisor in Los Angeles County is, Karen Bass will have the opportunity to move up to a better job either on the LA City Council or to the State Senate. She has stated that she will not do so, but a lot of people think when the time comes that she will and there will be a new Speaker chosen in less than a year.
If that is the case, John’s belief will be a subject of debate in both caucuses. Before Karen was chosen, numerous Democrats were running for Speaker and several made overtures towards working with Republicans either as a group or on specific issues that they could support. However, some other candidates specifically argued that no one should negotiate with Republicans and the decision should be the perogative of the Democratic caucus. As it has been in recent Speakership fights, this question would obviously be one debated very intensely.
The problem I see with John’s point of view is that eliminating any minority say in the choice leads to fighting in places where it shouldn’t happen. In states like Illinois where the partisanship is more pronounced, there have been businesses making decisions on where to locate their companies simply based on which political district they would be in. If as John argued in another post, man is inherently power hungry, then I still think on balance, we are all better off by keeping the competition in the system and forcing leaders in both parties to at least be aware that if the opposition gets too upset, they might build a coalition with unhappy members of your own caucus. I think it serves as a needed break on crazy partisanship.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon – I don’t comment often but I feel compelled. I worked for a Chief of Staff for 6 years. I had the honor of working for a man who at best was too good to be a politician and at worst was one of the most honest and genuine men you will meet in a lifetime of associations. I can say this with certainty. He would have layed down in the middle of Highway 99 and been run over by semi-trucks before he would have voted for the likes of Antonio Villaraigosa or Fabian Nunez for anything. Additionally, he would have done everything he could with op-eds and letters and speeches (I am sure a few of your readers heard a few of these) – letting people know about their affiliations with organizations like Mecha or the speeches they have given about what should happen to California. He would have taken the opportunity to show the difference between what a Republican leader stands for and that of a Democrat.
One could only hope Republicans will seize that opportunity again.
JJ
May 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Since virtually every Republican member of the legislature including conservatives like Tom McClintock have voted in the past for Democratic Speakers I would be curious as to who this member is. This whole thing is a gesture to the idea that legislators no matter how wide their differences are still working primarily to solve the problems of the people of California and maybe it’s all just hypocritical and should be changed. But I think the idea of not making a vote unanimous is simple another form of grandstanding and implies to too many Californians what they already believe which is that elected officials in Sacramento are more into partisan bickering than they are into working together to solve problems.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Tom:
Sorry, but the facts do not sustain your belief that Repuclicans have always
laid-down-and-cheered unanimous votes for Democrat Speakers.
1996 (a)
The GOP’s Curt Pringle was elected Speaker on Jan. 5, 1996? The winning
vote was 40-37 … definitely not bipartisan.
1996 (b)
When Democrats regained a majority in 1996, Curt Pringle was nominated
by the GOP, and Cruz Bustamante won a contested vote by a margin of 43
to 37 on December 2, 1996.
1998
Same thing on December 7, 1998…. the GOP’s Rod Pacheco was put
forward by Republicans, and Villaraigosa was chosen by a margin of 47
to 31.
Ms. Jacobs remembers a happier time when Republicans were proud to
nominate one of their own to be Speaker.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Actually all three of those speaker selections were then ratified unanimously by the Assembly, but you are right in a sense that even those votes were a change from the norm and more in line with what John is arguing for and what I think is a big step backwards for the people of California.
Part of the reason I believe that and more on target for this discussion if we are being honest, is that there is a long history (You can find records of it going back to the 1800’s) of the minority party being consulted by the majority party on the selection of the presiding officer.
I think that’s a good thing and helps the Assembly function more effectively. Republicans helped to choose Cruz Bustamante (who I single out because of the mention of Mecha above) when Democrats had multiple possible candidates who were interested in the Speakership and one of the factors that came into play for several Democrats was the question of who could get along best with Republican members to hopefully help things move more quickly and effectively on areas of agreement. They didn’t have to do that and maybe John is right, that it’s not a good way to go.
But if we are talking about things that matter (and as Robert Kennedy once pointed out, elected officials are agents of action, candidates are agents of change)then logically if the Speakership opens up next year and Democrats still have a majority, then you should push Republican members not to negotiate their votes as they have in the past to advance their agenda and to simply accept the choice of the Democratic caucus and to make clear that they will never join in a coaliton with Democrats (ala the Gang of Five) to change the Speaker. I think such a move would be unfortunate for the people of California although it could move legislative activity to the left, but either way, it’s the perogative of any member and John is right that it’s a fair point for ideological discussion. I just dislike the pretend issues that come up in politics because there are enough real differences that separate the parties without manufacturing extra ones for political effect.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Tom:
The authoritative “Assembly Daily Journal” does NOT show any of these 3
Speaker votes were then made unanimous by the Assembly. Here are the
links to those documents:
CURT PRINGLE ….. elected Jan. 1996
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/legisdocs/010496.pdf
(found at page 9)
CRUZ BUSTAMANTE…. elected Dec. 1996
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/legisdocs/aj120296.pdf
A. VILLARAIGOSA… elected 1998
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/legisdocs/adj120798.pdf
May 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
You are correct with what the record shows. I was present when Cruz was selected and maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. I don’t know.