SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to Reuters and The Washington Post:
Two of the Democratic Party’s biggest wins last month occurred in Wisconsin and Michigan, where their candidates won gubernatorial elections, unseating a well-known incumbent in the former and flipping the seat in the latter. In anticipation of having to work with a Democratic governor, state lawmakers are aiming to hurriedly pass legislation that would dilute the executives' powers.
The moves in both states have drawn comparisons to Republican efforts in NC in 2016, when lawmakers pushed through legislation limiting the authority of the state’s Democratic governor, after he defeated the incumbent Republican.
The proposals include preventing the incoming governor from withdrawing Wisconsin from a legal challenge to the federal Affordable Care Act, sidestepping the attorney general’s power to represent the state in litigation and rescheduling a 2020 election to boost the chances of a Republican state Supreme Court Justice, among others.
U.S. Republicans and Democrats have a history of using lame-duck sessions to advance priorities ahead of power shifts. Wisconsin Democrats in 2010 unsuccessfully tried to push through public union contracts after Walker won election while promising to get tough with organized labor.
Meanwhile, in Utah, lawmakers are getting ready to meet in a special lame-duck session on Monday (Dec 3rd) to rewrite a medical marijuana law that voters passed this November. Patient advocates are saying the move is an end run around voters.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by schad on Tuesday December 04 2018, @03:49PM (13 children)
The story here is about two issues where the submitter is trying to draw a relationship, but where I'm not sure one exists.
In the case of Utah, it seems clear that the legislature is, in fact, going against the will of the voters. Or at least, trying as hard as it can not to go along with the will of the voters.
In the other cases, remember that it's not just the governor who's elected by the people. The legislatures are too. Legislatures are, in fact, considerably more representative and democratic than the executive offices (which are winner-take-all). I think it's a little dishonest to say that the governor more properly reflects the will of the voters, and therefore that a legislature acting against the governor is somehow going against the will of the voters.
When the same party controls both the legislative and executive branches, you will see the legislature delegating more power to the executive. This is because of what I said earlier: the legislature is more representative and democratic. This makes it harder for them to push through their agenda, especially when it's got strong opposition. Far easier to let the governor rule like a king. This way, if you lose the legislature, the governor can still advance your agenda through executive order. If, on the other hand, you lose the governorship, it's time for the legislature to step in and strip as many powers as possible. Really, the only way to lose is if you lose both branches in the same election.
And rather than merely being cynical politics, there are strong indications that this is exactly what the American people want. How many people were calling for Obama to make sweeping changes by executive order due to an obstructionist Congress? How many people are calling for Trump to do the same thing now? How many people do you think maintained a consistent position regarding executive powers between the two administrations?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:08PM (1 child)
It's a laugh a minute here where posters who claim not to be Republican voters post in support of Republicans politicians.
These legislatures are not representative because of heavy gerrymandering in those states, which mean that Republicans get more seats than Democrats with fewer total votes.
(Score: 2) by schad on Wednesday December 05 2018, @08:42PM
That means that the legislature is less representative than it should be. It doesn't mean it's less representative than the executive branch, which is almost always stocked exclusively with members of the governor's party.
Of all the things I said, I never thought that "a branch of government that represents only a single party is not very representative" would turn out to be the controversial part.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stretch611 on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:43PM (1 child)
I admit you do have an interesting point. However...
These actions are being held in lame duck sessions. These are legislative items that were not formed in committees before the lame duck session, not requested by the public and lets face it, they were never even considered until the group in power lost some of their power.
If while in office, the current governor makes legislative choices that the people do not like. The people vote to change governors; well, the state congress benefited from those choices and decide to change the law to allow only themselves to make the choice, not the governor. This goes against the will of the people.
Also, some people actually like it when the Governor and State Congress (or President and US Congress) are controlled by two different political parties... It forces compromise so that the ideology of one party is not forced on all of the voters. This compromise will never happen if one branch of government rewrites all the existing laws to remove the power (and forced balance) of the other branch.
When considered against these points, IMO, it is difficult to see these as anything but an end run around the will of the public.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @06:45PM
I'm one of them. Best case scenario by my way of thinking is having the legislative branch in opposition to the executive but not quite so strongly that they can easily override a veto. And for both branches to switch which party holds the advantage every single term of the executive.
I want both parties to be so terrified of the other party ever gaining enough control in the executive that they wouldn't dream of handing it any more power and would reduce its current power at every opportunity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by taylormc on Tuesday December 04 2018, @06:50PM (7 children)
To a Brit, many aspects of US politics are surprising. On the one hand, there seems to be nothing like an independent Civil Service; most appointments under a new government are party political.
On the other hand, you permit those who have been voted out of office a free run to commit what mischief they choose for a couple of months, in the sure and certain knowledge that they will not be the ones who have to pick up the pieces afterwards.
I'm not sure what to make of this dichotomy.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 04 2018, @09:44PM (3 children)
I live under a Westminster system as well, and it amazes me how our American friends just seem to accept that there can only be two political parties.
300 million of them, and they can only muster two parties? The UK has 8 parties, plus some independents, and even my own tiny country of ~4 million can manage to get 5 parties going.
I think what happened was the ruling class in the US decided two parties are easy to control, so why let any more get power?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:14PM (1 child)
That's more or less accurate if you define the ruling class as a fairly nebulous group primarily made up of politicians, intelligence agencies, and bureaucrats.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 04 2018, @11:12PM
I was defining the ruling class as the owners of the industry groups and corporations that fund the political class in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @07:03PM
that's why i vote 3rd party every time. unfortunately, there are only 2% americans left...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 04 2018, @10:17PM (1 child)
See, from our point of view, having a branch of government not answering to The People is a non-starter. That doesn't keep everything but the agency heads and maybe a deputy or two from being non-appointed, non-elected bureaucrats though. I never said we made complete sense...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:36AM
What the hell country do you live in? It sure as hell isn't the US. Our government answers to the campaign donors.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:20AM
Agree - it's just insane to let the losers set fire to everything afterward. My country uses the Westminster system too, and all legislative change is frozen from the moment an election is called until the new elected officials start. Makes sense!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 04 2018, @07:07PM
Since Obama was a Dem and Trump is a Rep, I think many people maintained a consistent position of "I want my party to do stuff and the other one to not."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"