Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Editorial: When the politics of lawmaking gets in the way of transparency

Politics may be great sport, but most Nevadans don’t understand how it’s played and have little opportunity to observe it. Nevada’s Legislature meets only once every two years, during a madcap four-month session that starts with all of the excitement of sap dripping from a maple tree and ends with the high-speed churning of a food blender.

And there are processes and rules that boggle all but the most bureaucratic of minds, from the inception of a bill to its final passage, and all the committee hearings along the way. To say that making laws is akin to making sausage insults the sausage industry.

This session, the sport of lawmaking has become even more obscure, with Republicans in the Senate changing the rules as this year’s big game draws toward its conclusion. The Republicans now control if and when bills can be amended, which will stifle open debate on various issues of interest to voters. In other words, lawmaking has become less transparent, which flies in the face of good public policy.

The background

Throughout a session, but more typically toward the end of one, amendments are added to bills, whether to fine-tune them or so that another — and possibly unrelated — proposal can piggyback on it. These amendments are debated publicly with great vigor, with elected officials from both parties arguing for or against the amendment based on the merits. But many politicians try to avoid discussing certain amendments because they don’t want to be trapped into showing their true colors on certain issues that can be turned into political baggage.

This open floor debate is healthy because it promotes transparency in government by effectively flushing out where politicians stand on various issues. It’s that information that voters will use in subsequent elections when they weigh what bills — and amendments — a particular incumbent supported or opposed. The political parties will cite the opposition’s voting record, giving voters some litmus tests, if not context, on where their representatives stand.

Indeed, some amendments are proposed just to force an opposing party to come clean about its position on the issue. It may sound conniving or manipulative, but it forces an airing of values, positions and philosophies, which voters deserve.

So, what’s happened?

This session’s Republicans have decided they want to minimize the times they may have their feet held to the fire over an amendment. So last week Michael Roberson, the Senate majority leader, created the Parliamentary Rules and Procedures Committee. It has three members — two Republicans and a Democrat. The committee’s primary task is to green-light which bill amendments can be debated on the Senate floor. In other words, Republicans can effectively kill amendments before they reach the floor, where they could cause them political harm or embarrassment.

There may come times when Republicans will decide an amendment is worth hearing on the floor — perhaps one that reflects a compromise already hammered out between the two parties, or one that is supported by Republicans. But mostly, this committee seems intent on pre-empting political debate.

If it sounds like the Republicans are being a bit conniving, consider this: It is supposed to take a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules — a threshold Roberson wouldn’t have been able to meet. But the Republicans said these were not rule changes; rather, they were entirely new rules, which can be adopted by a simple majority. (There are 11 Republicans in the Senate and 10 Democrats.) The rationale for the new rules change: We’re approaching the end of the session, and to not get bogged down with frivolous or time-consuming amendments, we’ll screen them first and only forward those to the floor that are most appropriate, in the interest of time.

Hogwash, say Democrats. The legislative process is moving along fine, and there is no such urgency for streamlining at the expense of transparency and healthy debate.

Even if there were a logjam of legislation, that’s no excuse to obfuscate how our political system plays out in Carson City. We should not be a society that forfeits transparency for expediency. The requirement that amendments be signed off on by Republicans before going to the Senate floor for a full airing is a case of political selfishness trumping smart public policy.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy