Over at National Review, Dan McLaughlin accuses Democrats of being unfair:
Have you heard? Republicans are threatening democracy and are probably racist and transphobic for trying to expel state legislators who don’t abide by the rules of their chambers and disrupt legislative business — and now they’re trying to kick nearly an entire caucus out of a state legislature it controls!
Well, except that the move to wipe out a whole legislative caucus is being done by Democrats.... We are yet again reminded that the rules are all Calvinball to Democrats and their mouthpieces in the national political press. They mean none of it, ever.
That sounds bad. But maybe you'd like to hear the actual story here?
Oregon is a Democratic state, something that Republicans obviously don't like much. So, since they can't win actual elections, Republican legislators have developed a habit of leaving the state en masse to prevent the legislature from reaching the quorum it needs to do business. This got tiresome, so last year Oregon voters approved Measure 113, which bars members from reelection if they miss ten or more legislative sessions. It was enormously popular, passing by a whopping 68-32% margin.
Republican legislators thumbed their noses at it. In May they walked out again for 42 days. As a result, they are barred from running for reelection in 2024 (or possibly not until 2026 depending on how a court case turns out).
In other words, "Democrats" aren't doing anything. Obviously Measure 113 was their idea, but it was approved overwhelmingly by the public and its penalties were well known to the Republicans who walked out. They were automatically disqualified from reelection by law—enforced by the Secretary of State—not by a partisan vote in the legislature.
This all seems straightforward enough, but McLaughlin thinks it's outrageous because....
....It's not clear, really. The closest he comes to a reason is that Republicans used their walkouts as a way of "stymieing extreme Democratic proposals on abortion, guns, transgender surgeries, and other issues." It's not clear to me why he thinks this is a reason the law shouldn't apply.
McLaughlin is an odd duck. In former days he was a relatively moderate conservative, but he has since moved to National Review and become outraged about absolutely everything Democrats do. This is life in Donald Trump's Republican Party, I guess, even if you don't like Trump yourself.
Um? …
They walked out in May, and said walkout lasted for 42 days. This could perhaps have been written "In May, they walked out again; that walkout lasted for 42 days" but it's clear enough to me.
I seem to recall a similar walk-out tactic being used in Texas. Though perhaps not to the same degree. What might the reaction be to a Prop 113 there?
Texas only allows legislatively referred constitutional amendments on their ballot. No other statewide propositions are allowed.
The Texas walkout was by Democrats opposed to the latest gerrymander. It was a one shot deal.
I still don't understand why you keep reading NR.
The Oregon Republican Party's embrace of MAGA has only further isolated itself from statewide offices. They knew the new law was in effect and defied it anyway.
If you recall, it was a (now former, and convicted) Republican state representative who opened the door and let violent protesters into the Capitol, back in 2020 in the midst of Trump's push to overturn the election by illegal means.
I used to see a lot of retweets of ol' Baseball Crank's posts back before Elmo started working his magic. The impression I got was that he was a full-on devotee of the Michael Anton view-- anything Democrats do is malign by definition and will bring about the downfall of our Republic immediately if not sooner, therefore they need to be bombarded with the heaviest rhetorical ammunition available on every point, at all times.
Sounds like nothing's changed there. Thanks for tracking down the real story
While I don't like the tactic, this is not a uniquely Republican strategy: there are multiple examples of Democrats using virtually the same strategy.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/31/1001811919/texas-democrats-walk-out-stop-republicans-sweeping-voting-restrictions
https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/08/28/democrats-walk-out-over-jones-silencing-as-house-senate-remain-in-stalemate/
https://ballotpedia.org/Noteworthy_state_legislative_walkouts
So your example is when Democrats walked out after Republicans expelled a Black man for being too uppity? And you conflate that with Republicans in Oregon refusing to go to work for months at a time in order to stop all business?
"Middle of the road"
Hopefully to be run over by a HUGE eighteen wheeler.
A comment that brings Jim Hightower to mind...
👍When plain old lies aren't enough, they just add false equivalences.
Denying a quorum on occasion as a legislative roadblock is a common tactic older than the country.
What isn't common, and shouldn't be borne, is simply shutting down the entire legislature for months and months on end to deny an entire governing agenda because you can't win at the ballot box.
This tactic MIGHT be defensible in extreme circumstances, like if the legislature were trying to pass an Enabling Act or something. But in general it should be regarded as illegitimate, and should not be countenanced.
I'd go one step further; ALL states, and Congress, should basically make it illegal to miss votes or not show up to work without a very, very good reason. You either get your ass into the chamber and do your darn job, designate a proxy if you're literally physically incapable (like you're in surgery or something), or burly law enforcement officials will come and ESCORT you to the chamber to do your job. They can't stop you from folding your arms and voting "no" on everything once there, but I get fired when I don't show up; so should legislators.
Yep, the standard should be "Three unexcused absences and you're out! And there will be no 'Special Election' to replace you. Your seat goes unfilled until the next regular election."
Maybe five unexecuted absences or make the allowable excuses pretty broad. But specifically exclude more than four people of the same party using the same excuse.
I don’t see where the Democrats are proposing to wipe out Republicans. Some Republicans will not be able to stand for reelection but nobody’s getting wiped out. The entire nest will still be alive and well. Other Republicans could take their place if they can win an election.
Yeah, the next escalation is simply going to be Oregon Republicans playing round-robin.
Eventually, Oregon Democrats are going to need to adopt new quorum rules.
I think that the Republican refusal to participate in the legislative process would make it impossible to change the rules. Everything will depend on the next election. But if the Democrats win enough seats to change the quorum rules, they should also gerrymander the Republican Party out of existence in the state.
Three strikes (unexcused absences) and you're out, NOW, and no replacement election will be held. That's what they should have passsed.
OT: No post about JOLTS?
has since moved to National Review and become outraged about absolutely everything Democrats do
Because for McLaughlin and ER it's easy money. No right wing publication is going to survive in the current "markert". unless they're at the very least see the Democrats as the Evil Party.
We're well past differences of opinion.
In the Federal government, a quorum consists of half of the members. So if the Democrats were to walk out of the House of Representatives en mass, the Republicans could still conduct business. But for some reason Oregon didn't copy the Federal rules. In Oregon, the House of Representatives has 60 members, and 40 members (rather than 30) are required for a quorum.
Not just federal, actually; as far as I know most representative bodies set a quorum at half the members. It'd be interesting to know why this one is different-- giving the minority some leverage, maybe?-- and what other states have that. TX must because the Dems were able to deny a quorum pretty recently to dramatize an urgent issue. But they don't make a habit of it. (And thanks for checking the provision there so I didn't have to try!)
It must drive Rs in Oregon crazy that they can get more than 1/3 of the seats but can't ever get up over half no matter what they do. No wonder they're trying to secede.
Winners and whiners. Those are the parties in Oregon.
Hey, azzole, what about the Democrats in Alabama, Idaho or Wyoming? Same crocodile tears for them?
I thought not.
Outside the US, it's common to set quorum at considerably less than half the members. The British House of Commons, for instance, has a membership of 650 and a quorum of 40.
Kevin, at some point you are going to have to acknowledge that the National Review has gone insane, and time spent reading there is time wasted.
I know, it wasn't always like this. Less than 10 years ago the NR used to give good, thoughtful conservative input on issues. But those days are long gone. Riffing off NR articles now just pollutes your blog.