Today was my first day on the government committee, which began with a controversial series of bills, introduced by the Rep. Ugenti-Rita. The bills, HB2320, HB2002, and HB2007, were concerned with prop 105, otherwise known as the Arizona Voter Protection Act. It was a proposition passed in 1998 by voters in the state that prevented legislators from amending or repealing laws created by initiatives or referendums from voters. By prop 105, if the legislature wanted to amend or repeal a law created by an initiative or referendum, it would have to obtain a 3/4ths vote and it would have to be an amendment to further the purpose of the bill, which opponents of prop 105 argued is nearly impossible to do and prevents from scaling back a bill. HB2002 and HB2007 would put this issue to voters as to whether or not to repeal this 3/4ths requirement placed by prop 105 so that legislators could amend or repeal voter initiatives as with normal bills that go through the House or Senate. HB 2320 would require current initiatives and referendums to list on the ballot that any amendments to the bill would require a 3/4ths vote in the state legislature so voters are aware of the prop 105 requirement. Those in favor argued that the ability to amend legislation created by initiatives was vital to ensure that these laws work effectively, whereas opponents insisted that this undermined an important tool of democracy for the voters. After much debate, the bills eventually passed.
After these bills, the committee heard 6 more bills, HB2054, HB2136, HB2255, HB2284, HB2326, HB2370, and HB2373, which I won't go into great depth about them (because I have other things to talk about in this post and don't want to get distracted), so if you want to read more about them, click their names to see the run down, or you can watch the whole meeting here.
After a quick lunch outside and discovering the farmer's market outside the Capitol (every Thursday, it's delicious, come visit it!), I went down to the House floor, where legislators passed so many bills that by the time I had to leave they were still going strong. If you want to see it, you can watch part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, and part 9 (I told you it was long).
And now for the quote of the day. During the Government committee meeting, Rep. John mentioned, as he was explaining his vote, that he disliked it when people labeled bills as "bipartisan" because he believed that bills were not divided by party but by quality, finishing his speech by saying "If it's good, it's good; if it's bad, it's bad." I felt that his statement accurately labeled what I saw the last few weeks, that though many times people will vote alongside their party, many times a bill is just a bill, and when it's a good bill it will pass. One of the most surprising things about my time here at the state legislature is how easy for those "good" bills to get passed when there are great ideas brought to committees.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Mimi!
ReplyDeleteIt is super cool that you got to sit in on hearings for these bills. They demonstrate the checks and balances the people have on the government and vice versa. At the end of your post, you mentioned that despite party lines, a good bill is a good bill and will be passed. Do you think any of the House Bills you heard about today will have that kind of support from the committee?
Hi Paru! I see many bills that get support across both parties, which is very exciting to see. I can't recall the bills from that specific day, but I would argue that you can find at least one at least in every committee meeting
DeleteHey Mimi!
ReplyDeleteIt must be so cool to be sitting and watching as people in power make decisions that affect our daily lives. You mentioned that a good bill will be passed regardless of any ideological gridlock- what do you think makes a bill a good bill? I hope that you continue having an awesome time.
Hi Tanmyaa! I think a good bill has to do with helping a group that needs it with no cost to any other parties involved. Sometimes that means fixing an oversight from a previous bill, and sometimes that just means addressing a problem that no one really knew existed before it was brought to them. Either way, it is always good to see those kinds of bills in committee and to see everyone get along
DeleteHi Mimi!
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing that you have this opportunity to witness the actual legislative process in Arizona. It's interesting how Rep. John believes a good bill will pass regardless of party lines. How often do you think bills get passed into effect because they are simply good?
I think that there are a lot of bills out there that are what Rep. John refers to as just "good", and I think that they get passed fairly quickly (though I'll have to keep you updated as bills go through both houses). I have seen quite a few bills in committee that receive unanimous support, and most of the time they are fairly time-effective because they don't require extensive debate
DeleteHey Mimi!
ReplyDeleteI think your observations on Rep. John's criticism on labeling bills as "bipartisan" are really interesting. I know it's probably too early for you to say much about whether representatives are generally voting along party lines or to support good bills, but I'd love to know if you have any observations about the rhetoric you've heard so far. What kinds of debate are representatives engaging in, and has it been largely centered in substance/facts?