Wisconsin Governor Has the Power to Replace the Vacant Democratic Legislators

Bobbi85710's Mouth in the South Baby Boomer Banter ^ | 2/18/11 | Bobbi

[Logical me]

These Democrat legislators are communists. I've been saying that Democrats are communists. It is their belief in a strong central Government and controlled by Marxist that is the main basis. Putting King Obama as dictator is one of their main objects since King Obama is a dunce and can be used for their purpose.

[LachlanMinnesota]

The members are absent but the seat is vacant.

I would rather explore the right of the governor to withhold pay from them while they are absent.

[eyedigress]

They need 20 Senators, the fact that all absent are democrats
they phrase it in a way that could be confusing.

[BenKenobi]

They need 20 warm bodies. Quorum doesn’t care about party affiliation.

[chris_bdba]

Oh how I hope one of his advisors reads here. Wouldn’t it be lovely if he announced tomorrow that if they were not back in session by X date that a special eletion would be called to replace every one of them.... LOL

[bilhosty]

Doesn't Wisconsin have recall? I thought that was the law since laFollette’s day. it seems tome some freepers could take the law of the state in their own hands and recall a legislator or two.

[Pilsner]

The “run to avoid a quorum” trick works if you can leave one person behind to force a roll call to check if a quorum is there.

I wondered the same thing. When my State Senator (Texas) legged it to New Mexico a few years ago, they left one Dem behind to raise a point of order that there was not a quorum. In Texas, the Dems could leave one behind, and still deny a quorum. The Wisconsin Dems cannot. I suspect that they (1) hope the Republicans, in what used to be a "good government" State, are too fastidious to ram it through, (2) hope that the Wisconsin Courts will ignore the "enrolled bill rule" (which says a Court cannot judicially review whether a bill certified as passed by the Legislature, really was lawfully passed), and (3) hope that the Unions will appreciate the fact they stayed bought.

[Ge0ffrey]

Ooops. Thanks.

[NonValueAdded]

Vacant is the wrong word; “abandoned” makes it work. Failure to answer quorum calls may be the key.

[TruthConquers]

I saw this at MISH today:

"Inquiring minds are reading snips from a Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions written August 16, 1937.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. "

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/public-union-protesters-more-like-greek.html

FDR against strikes by public unions!!!!!! Take that libbies!!!

[Max Blast]

Follow the Pelosi plan and just “deem” there to be a quorum.

[Myrddin]

Here’s another solution: have one Republican officially change parties.

No. It is a quorum problem. It takes 20 to have a quorum before they can vote. The Republicans number only 19. One more person is required. All the others happen to be Democrats.

[AnalogReigns]

The governor DOES have the authority to call for an election to fill a vacancy, he DOES NOT have the right to declare a seat vacant...however, a simple majority of the legislature does.

If the Repubs who control the WI legislature have the juevos...they’ll do it.

[kevkrom]

The “run to avoid a quorum” trick works if you can leave one person behind to force a roll call to check if a quorum is there. But what happens if the Republicans just don’t call a roll and assume that there are 20 Senators there and start voting on those things requiring a 3/5 quorum? Can they just deem there to be a quorum unless someone demands an actual roll call... but if there were a Dem there to do it they would have the 20 they need? What legal options do the Dems have if the Republicans just start voting things in 19-0 and “assume” that the Dem (there had to have been one somewhere) just abstained?

This is what I've been saying all along -- intentionally "miscount" the attendance and officially record it if there are no objections, then proceed with the established quorum.

The reason this wouldn't work in Indiana is that they have enough of a margin to leave a couple of folks behind to raise such objections.

[Marathoner]

This is what I've been saying all along -- intentionally "miscount" the attendance and officially record it if there are no objections, then proceed with the established quorum.

Why not? I remember brother Jim Wright pulling these kind of shenanigans as Speaker of the House back in the mid 80s.