OKPOLICY.ORG
We seem to be living in a time when the long-agreed-upon principles upon which we have governed ourselves are being challenged.
A group of citizens — including former Republican State Rep. Charles Key and former 2014 Republican state senate candidate Duane Crumbacher — have filed a petition to submit a constitutional amendment to a vote of the people, requiring the legislature to adopt specific rules for considering legislation.
State Question 839 would guarantee every legislator the right to have at least three of their bills voted on in committee each regular session and on the floor if approved by the committee. If passed by the initial chamber, the member would have the right to have the bills heard in the opposite chamber.
Article 5 section 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution currently provides without limitation that “Each House (of the legislature) may determine the rules of its proceedings….” Courts have been reluctant to meddle in the legislative process given this provision and the legislature’s status as a co-equal branch of government.
Former Rep. Key bills himself as an author, a “warrior for truth and transparency in government,” and a “leader and educator for grassroots and citizen activism.” Key served in the House of Representatives for 18 years, experiencing both minority and majority party roles. He says the problem with how our government works is “the tug-of-war for power and the corruption that often goes with it.”
Ballotpedia lists key issues highlighted on Crumbacher’s campaign website such as supporting traditional marriage, defending the unborn, protecting the rights of parents over their child’s education, reducing regulations and taxes, cutting waste, killing corporate welfare, opposing gun control, and others.
The upshot of SQ 839 would be to take away the power of legislative leadership to control the agenda of the legislature and turn it over to the rank-and-file members. Key and Crumbacher aim to boost government transparency and accountability.
With SQ 839, any ill-considered idea that an individual legislator wanted to make law could get a public legislative vote. The legislators who take on the responsibility of killing the bill with their public vote would be subject to the wrath of its supporters. Under current constitutional and legislative rules, the committee chairman simply sets aside the idea and proceeds to other matters.
Neither system is perfect. Some could argue the present crop of leaders have lost their way while others think they are doing great work. Plenty of bad ideas get made law under the current system. And plenty of good ideas get killed for the wrong reasons. But there would likely be many more miscues if something like SQ 839 were to pass.
Especially with social media nowadays, it is easy to arouse the passions of people about an issue with very little explanation of its possible implications. Legislative leadership, when it’s exercised properly, is there to look at those possible implications and screen out the worst of the ideas brought forward.
In our representative democracy, rather than having everyone vote on every issue, we long ago decided to elect legislators to make policies — hopefully policies that reflect sound governance — on our behalf. The legislature itself is also a representative democracy. Rather than everyone voting on everything, legislators elect their leaders to screen the ideas and submit the best ones for a vote.
I’ll admit, I don’t always like the ideas they select and would prefer some they don’t select. But I think I prefer the present system to everyone voting on everything. For now, State Question 839 has a long way to go before ever seeing a ballot.
