[AuH2ORepublican]

"

"UPDATE: The U.S. House just voted down the King Amendment by voice vote. Congressman King immediately moved to have the vote be recorded by roll call, but the Rule on the bill didn't allow for roll call votes -- so we'll never know how Murtha voted."

---

Actually, they did have a recorded vote, and Murtha voted AGAINST Congressman King's very commonsensical amendment:

"The amendment that would have extended the act for a decade, rather than the 25 years in the bill, was rejected 288-134. The proposal to strike requirements in the law that ballots in districts with large populations of non-English speakers be printed in other languages failed 238-185."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071300369.html

Rollcall vote for amendment to eliminate bilingual-ballots requirement: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll372.xml

[Coop]

A ping to and thanks to AuH2O for Murtha vote above.

Ms. Irey did a nice job calling him out on this.

[WeDontKnowJack]

AuH2O, that's an excellent pickup -- thanks for updating the update!

I watched C-SPAN to see how they were going to handle the amendments, and after each one was voted on, the sponsor moved to have a recorded vote, and the Chairman declared some parliamentary mumbo-jumbo and then moved on -- without a recorded vote. I guess the parliamentary mumbo-jumbo meant something along the lines of "We'll give you your recorded vote, but it will be done by electronic device instead of taking the time to call out the names one at a time," or something like that.