I get the distinct impression that Senate Majority Leader R. Blake Curd wasted time on the Senate floor Friday just to jerk his fellow Republican Senator Stace Nelson’s chain.
The Senate was taking up Senator Curd’s motion (see 41:50 in the SDPB video) to adopt the report of the Joint Legislative Procedure Committee, which would accept the Joint Rules for the Legislature for the 2017 Session. Following the failure of his three proposed changes to the Joint Rules last Wednesday, Senator Nelson offered a substitute motion to reject the report and submit two of his proposed changes, with amendment to one, for reconsideration. One change was his newsworthy ban on sexual contact between legislators and their young underlings (more on that in a separate post). The other change sought to strike a provision added in 2014 that bars legislators from dividing a bill into separate parts when the bill is up for final consideration on the floor of either chamber. “Dividing the question” is a normal parliamentary maneuver, but the Legislature added this restriction in 2014, after then-Representative Nelson tried to use it to stop passage of leadership-favored 2013 Senate Bill 235.
Following Senator Nelson’s speech in favor banning legislator–intern/page nookie and letting legislators divide more questions, Senator Curd moved to divide Senator Nelson’s question.
Senator Curd said, “there are perhaps many on the Chamber floor who would like to have the opportunity to consider each one and not to consider them as a package.” Senate President Matt Michels accepted Curd’s motion.
“I’m enjoying the irony,” said Senator Nelson said in later remarks. “You ain’t alone,” said President Michels.
Majority Leader Curd urged his colleagues to resist the divided motions, first because “so far in the chamber I have a perfect record of my motions being accepted without defray. I don’t want to bat less than a thousand as we adjourn for the weekend.”
Ah, levity.
Senator Curd also said the rules committee had thoroughly discussed the matter and need not revisit the issue.
The latter sentiment received tacit agreement: no one but Nelson rose with any further remarks on either rule change. Fourteen Senators voted for the sexual contact ban, twelve of those same Senators supported the division revision (There was no roll call on these two questions, but the SDPB video appears to show the same people standing.) Both submotions thus failed, and the Senate approved the rules as reported 19–13.
Majority Leader Curd’s motion to divide produced no practical result different from what would have happened had Senator Nelson’s motion been considered undivided. Majority Leader Curd simply extended debate by eleven minutes for the apparent ironiefreude of using against Senator Nelson the very rule that Nelson feels leadership improperly forbade him to use in 2013.
Once again, the South Dakota Legislature is Mean Girls for grown-ups.
For Stace … how to dominate those of inferior intellect.
http://www.naveedkashif.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-48-Laws-of-Power.pdf
How was Curd able to divide the question when the rules forbid dividing the question? Although the rules for this year were not yet passed (as that was the issue), do they not carry over the rules from last year until the new rules are passed?
Perhaps, Mr. Rorschach, it was because it was not final action by the legislatures.
Thank you for posting that very interesting link, Porter. We all know that President-Elect Trump doesn’t read, but it seems that Jared Kushner probably advises him along the lines of your link.
You’re welcome, friend. If Trump were to read, it might be on the subject of manipulation; something we’ll need in his coming term.
Porter, what the heck? Now you’re talking like Chad Haber.
This is a classic example of Republican legislators desiring strict morality for everybody except themselves. Similar to Congressional Republicans who want free lifetime medical care for themselves but for nobody else.
Good question, Ror! Let’s look at the full rule:
Aligning with what Grudz suggests, President Michels ruled that Nelson’s substitute motion did not concern final disposition of the matter on the floor, which was adoption of the committee report. Had Nelson’s motion passed, the Senate would have replaced the original motion to accept with Nelson’s motion to recommit with changes and then would cast a final vote on whether or not to take that action.
But I’d contend that the final-disposition exception still would not have applied. The restriction that irks Nelson applies to bills. On this issue, the Senate Friday was not debating a bill. It wasn’t even a resolution. It was simply a motion to accept the report of the Joint Legislative Procedure Committee. I would argue that the point of the rule is that we can’t on the floor chop up a bill and suddenly create multiple bills that have not received separate committee hearings. But we can divide motions all we want.
It’s like chess club, Cory. Raising the skills level makes the games more fun. It is just a game. :)