DOCSLIB.ORG

Section III LEGISLATURES and LEGISLATION 1 /Legislative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section III LEGISLATURES and LEGISLATION 1 /Legislative Section III t'. LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 1 /Legislative Organization and Services >-; 2. Legislation ; f •../ C»«*ft'Vl'VlV<| **t ^"l T-lTt.! -»l •!-•» " -•tf**<,'.. I-' • . \ W^; •• >. I. '•/ I ••' ./V ^.- <J( .:\ ;/. 0-^^ r •,. 1 Legislative Organization and Serviees (^. STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES HE citizens of the states through their serve for two.' Shorter terms-^'re the rtile constitutions have vested the supreme. for members of lower^ houses^- in forty- T. law-making power in their legisla­ three states House members serve for two- tures. They have provided for the popu­ year terms, and only, in Alabama, Louisi-.. lar election at frequent intervals of those ana, Maryland and MissisMppi do they vvho comprise the legislative bodies.' Ex­ have four-year terms. cept in Nebraska they have established Legislatures in a quarter of the states two-house" legislatures .in each state. in 1952-53 considered measures to length- ' Beyond these common elements, a very «n legislative terms so as to increase the .wide variety of constitutional provisionSj amount of time the legislator might devote statutory requirements, rules and prece­ to public business^ to ^reduce the time - dents govern the workings of the state -consumed in running for, re-election and legislatures. Tqgether these determine the. to retain experienced^gislat^s longer. rhany details of legislative structure, or­ States considering changes for one "Or both ganization and procedure, the purpose of houses were California, Colorado, Illi-, which is to enable the legislatures to carry nois, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska,.Ne- out their responsibilities in an orderly and_ _vada. New Yorkj Ohio, Pennsylvania,, effective manner. South Carolina and South Dakota. These '• In size the American state legislatures proposed changes wpiild have increased range from a total of; forty-three members House tergns from ivvo to four vears and in the unicameral Nebraska legislature td * Senate terms correspondingly, except in.. 424 in New Hampshire. The smallest California, Illinois, Kentucky and South bicameral leigislatiire is that of Delaware, Carolina, where Senate terms would have with fifty-two members. ; (See Table 3.) been increased from four to six years. State Senates vary in meH:ibership from .Only in California (to increase House seventeen in Delaware ana?^^ada to terms from two to four years and Senate sixty-seven in Minnesota. The lower teriSs.from four to six) arid Ohio (to in­ houses differ even more widely—from crease House and. .Senate terms from two thirfy-fiye members in Delaware, a^d less to four years) did thefe proposals receive^ than sixty members each in Idaho, Ne­ legislative approval. Ti-tjey are to be voted' vada, New Mexico and Wyoming up to on by the; electorates of the two states. ,^ 400 in New Hampshire, 279 in Connecti­ As indicated.in Table 6, ten legislatures;^,' cut and 246 in Vermont. / meet annually—a significant change since : In all states legislative terms are either 1943, when only four legislatures had of two or four years. State Senators.in annual sessions'. The remaining thirty- thirty-two states serve for four year's;-in eight states hold biennial regular sessions, sixteen states (including- Nebraska) they all but four (Kentucky, Louisiana, Missis- . 95 .. •€) 96 THE BOOK OF THE STATES sippi,and Virginia) in the odd-numbered basis or amount of legislative compensation years." -^ . since the end of World War II. The pr6s- •' . The trend toward annual sessions is con­ ent range of legislative salaries in the tinuing. Twenty state legislatures in 1952- thirty-one states vyhich compensate on this 53 considered the matter, and four (Kan­ basi^ is from §200 (in New Hampshire) to sas, Nevv Mexico, Pennsylvania and West $10,000 (in Illinois and New York) per . Virginia) initiated constitutional amend­ biennium. (Table 2.) ' , ments to provide annual sessions. All of Eighteen states employ a daily pay plan ' these amendments would restrict the even- for legislators, one of them—Oklahoma-^ year session to budgetary and related mat­ using a combination of daily 'pay and ters, as is the case now in California, Colo­ biehnial salary. The amounts paid under rado and Maryland. ,. 0 •• ' daily pay plans vary greatly—from S4.00 Table 6 also indicates restrictions on in Tennessee and $5.00 in;Kansas, North length of sessions. Such limitations, on the Dakota and Rhode Island, up to $30 in ^<, regular session exist in thirty-two states Louisiana. As noted below, the Tennessee T^"' and, as noted in the table, take a variety of figure has been raised—to $10 with an forms, both direct and indirect. Several ^additional $5.00 expense allowance—by states utilize the device of the "split ses­ a cohstitutiohal amendment approved . "• sion" or "recess session" to enable legisla­ November 3, 1953. tors to study pending proposals in greater As indicated oh Table 2, legislators in a. leisure, to review executive vetoes, or for number of states receive appreciable e.x- other purposes. These states include Ala­ pense allowances in addition to their sala­ bama, Califorriia, Georgia, New Jersey. ries or daily pay. In twelve states, this and Wisconsin; The Massachusetts legis­ allowance is. payable only during days of lature is constitutionally empo\yered to use the session. In some states—Arizona, this device but in practice its sessions are Kansas and North Dakota—th6^ expense not split. Two statesV(Florida and New allowance amounts to more thari the daily . "*- . Mexico) in 1953, of the sixteen which con- pay. The largest monthly or' lump sum "sidered such proposals, initiated constitu- expense allowances are paid in Louisiana tional'amendments to lengthen their ($150 a month when the legislature is not r legislative scissions ^y-. The , New Mexico in session), .Michigan ($2,000 per bien­ amendment, which also incorporated t|ie nium, in addition to various communica«- annual session feature:, was rejected by the tions expenses) and Penns>^lvania ($3,600 ' . voters in September, 1953. The Florida per biennium).. ': ' ,. amendment, as Well as one initiated by the Thirteen states during 1952-53 either Airkansas legislature in 1953, also would increased compensation of legislators or provide for split sessions.' initiated amendments looking toward the : • V There is general agreem.ent that com­ same objective. As this is written, action - pensation of state legislators has-been and to increase pay l^as been completed in in most states cohtinues to be too low. It eight states: Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, r has been widely recommended,, as in ihe. Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Me.xicb, report of the Council of State Govern­ Tennessee and Vermont. In addition, in- . ments' Committee on Legislative Processes creased compensation for Michigan legis­ and •Procedures in 1946 and 1948, that lators took effect Janiiary 1, 1953. In four; legislative compensation should be in­ other states—Arkansas, Florida, Te.xas creased, and also that annual salaries and West Vii"ginia—the legislatures have rather than daily pay plans should be em­ initiatecj^onstitutionaramendments which ployed. In both respects, there have beeh have yet to be approved by the elector­ extensive changes in recent years. In 1^3 ates. In South Carolina,'a bill passed by,,," . less than half of the states employed the the House is on the Senate calendar for salary plan; at present, thirty-one states consideration in 1954. The Tennessee use it, and there is pending in Florida a proposal already approved, as well as constitutional amendment which would one in Oregon still pending, would en- « add that state to the group/.. More than able subsequent^ changes by statutory: two-thirds of the states have changed the" action. In the final weeks of 1953, a special :< LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 97 session in New Jersey was considering a and 15 each'in Alab^ia, Arizona, Mary­ basit -legislative pay'increasc from $3,000 land and Rhode Island, up to 63 in to S5,000ayear. ./. Georgia, 60 in Missouri and 56 in Arkan­ Much of the work of the legislative ses­ sas. Senate standing committees (again sions is done by standing committees. For, excluding states which rely chiefly on joint a number of years it has been felt .widely committees) range from 10 in Wisconsin that most legislative bodies have too niany and 13 in Ohio up to 46 in Mississippi and committees to "permit most efficient con­ 40 in Florida. In several states, notably duct of committee work. The results in- in New England, joint standing commit­ ^ elude conflicts ' of corhn^ttee meetings, tees carry on all or a major share of referral inadequate advance notice and publicity work. These include Connecticut with 32 of hearings, and "the assignment of indi­ •joint committees, Massachusetts with 31, vidual legislators to more committees than , Maine with 23, and New Jersey with 16. they can serve effectively. There have There is correspondingly great varia­ been several instances of consolidation of tion as regards committee assignments. standing^^ committees in recent years; the ^ House members in eleven states serve on trend is toward fewer committees and an average of only one or two committees; , fewer committee assignments for indi­ this figure mounts to 10 committees in vidual legislators. A recent survey by ' Georgia and. Tennessee, and 11 or 12 in the Counieil of State Governments re-" North Cai-olina. Senators in Indiana, vealefl that reductions in comniittees were Maine, and Rhode Island serve on an made in sixteen states during 1949-53, average of two committees; in Kentucky as follows; Alabama (House jLOmmittees and New Jersey onl2, and in Tennessee oh reducedfrom 20. to 15), Arkansas (Senate 14. (See Table 7.) - .\ . • . •; . committees from 54 to 21), ' Colorado The rules of legislative bodies, ordi-. (House committees from 40 to 16, Senate . harily adopted at the beginning of each from 30.to 20), Iowa (House committees session, are the basis for the orderly dis­ from 54 to 38),,Kansas (Senate commUtees charge of business.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Nalysts Disagree About How to Frame the Recent
    ml-l ii FROM THE CENTER O UT The Evolution of Party Politics: The March of the GOP Continues in North Carolina by Mebane Rash Whitman In March, the Center released the tenth edition of A Reactionary , Revolutionary, or Article II: A Guide to the N.C. Legislature. Article Evolutionary Election? II is a comprehensive guide to the 1995-96 General A nalystsdisagreeabout howtoframe therecent Assembly, containing profiles of each member, ef- electoral wins of the GOP in North Carolina. fectiveness rankings, demographic trends since Were the wins reactionary, that is, were voters 1975, and committee assignments. The latest edi- reacting in an angry anti-incumbent, anti-Democrat, tion reveals three major trends: (1) the significant anti-tax, anti-big government manner? Were the gains of the Republican Party, which now holds 92 wins revolutionary, a changing of the guard in terms of 170 seats in the legislature; (2) women have of which party governs the state-from Democrats, more power in the 1995-96 General Assembly be- whose party has governed the state for almost all of cause they secured plum committee chairs; and (3) the 20th century, to Republicans, who hope to gov- African-American legislators lost the speakership ern much of the 21st century? Or were they evolu- and powerful committee chairs, so their influence tionary, a single step in the long march of the has declined. Republican Party toward true competitiveness in a two-party state? The results of most elections are to some extent elections in North Carolina should not reactionary, but 1994 was not a run-of-the-mill be underestimated.
    [Show full text]
  • Preface to LAWMAKING
    Preface to LAWMAKING December 2006 Publication 327 Copyright © 2006 Illinois Legislative Research Unit Springfield, Illinois CONTENTS Chapter 1 Personal Information for Legislators Chapter 2 The Job of Making Laws Chapter 3 Passing A Bill Chapter 4 The Media Chapter 5 General Assembly Procedures Chapter 6 Manual of House Procedures Chapter 7 Taxes, Campaign Finance, and Ethics Laws Chapter 8 State Budget and Appropriation Process Chapter 9 Other Participants in the Legislative Process CHAPTER 1 CONTENTS PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR LEGISLATORS Legislative Emoluments...................................................................... 1 Salary...................................................................................................... 1 Travel Allowances................................................................................... 2 Living Expenses...................................................................................... 2 Housing and Parking in Springfield .......................................................2 License Plates .........................................................................................2 Health Insurance .....................................................................................3 Pharmacy benefit .................................................................................4 Dental care ..........................................................................................4 Vision care ...........................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Issue (PDF 1MB)
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 116 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 166 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2020 No. 114 House of Representatives The House met at 11 a.m. and was THE JOURNAL Larsen, Member of Congress; Joe Courtney, Member of Congress; Jackie Speier, Member called to order by the Speaker pro tem- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- pore (Mr. SARBANES). of Congress; Donald Norcross, Member of ant to section 4(a) of House Resolution Congress. f 967, the Journal of the last day’s pro- Ruben Gallego, Member of Congress; Salud ceedings is approved. Carbajal, Member of Congress; Ro Khanna, DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER f Member of Congress; Filemon Vela, Member PRO TEMPORE of Congress; Kendra Horn, Member of Con- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE gress; Seth Moulton, Member of Congress; The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Anthony G. Brown, Member of Congress; Wil- fore the House the following commu- liam Keating, Member of Congress; Andy Chair will lead the House in the Pledge nication from the Speaker: Kim, Member of Congress; Gil Cisneros, of Allegiance. WASHINGTON, DC, Member of Congress. June 22, 2020. The SPEAKER pro tempore led the Chrissy Houlahan, Member of Congress; I hereby appoint the Honorable JOHN P. Pledge of Allegiance as follows: Xochitl Torres Small, Member of Congress; SARBANES to act as Speaker pro tempore on I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Mikie Sherrill, Member of Congress; Deb this day. United States of America, and to the Repub- Haaland, Member of Congress; Lori Trahan, NANCY PELOSI, lic for which it stands, one nation under God, Member of Congress; Anthony Brindisi, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits, 76 Neb
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 76 | Issue 4 Article 6 1997 The eN braska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits Kim Robak Nebraska Lieutenant Governor Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Kim Robak, The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits, 76 Neb. L. Rev. (1997) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol76/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Kim Robak* The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 791 II. Background ........................................... 793 III. Why and How the Unicameral Works ................. 799 A. Organization ...................................... 800 B. Process ........................................... 802 C. Partisanship ...................................... 804 D. The Lobby ........................................ 804 IV. Why a Nonpartisan Unicameral Is Superior to a Bicameral System ..................................... 805 A. Duplication ....................................... 805 B. Representative and Open Process .................. 809 C. Nonpartisanship .................................. 810 D. Leadership ........................................ 812 E. Lobby ............................................. 814 F. Balance
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 5 NC Legislature.Indd
    The State Legislature The General Assembly is the oldest governmental body in North Carolina. According to tradition, a “legislative assembly of free holders” met for the first time around 1666. No documentary proof, however, exists proving that this assembly actually met. Provisions for a representative assembly in Proprietary North Carolina can be traced to the Concessions and Agreements, adopted in 1665, which called for an unicameral body composed of the governor, his council and twelve delegates selected annually to sit as a legislature. This system of representation prevailed until 1670, when Albemarle County was divided into three precincts. Berkeley Precinct, Carteret Precinct and Shaftsbury Precinct were apparently each allowed five representatives. Around 1682, four new precincts were created from the original three as the colony’s population grew and the frontier moved westward. The new precincts were usually allotted two representatives, although some were granted more. Beginning with the Assembly of 1723, several of the larger, more important towns were allowed to elect their own representatives. Edenton was the first town granted this privilege, followed by Bath, New Bern, Wilmington, Brunswick, Halifax, Campbellton (Fayetteville), Salisbury, Hillsborough and Tarborough. Around 1735 Albemarle and Bath Counties were dissolved and the precincts became counties. The unicameral legislature continued until around 1697, when a bicameral form was adopted. The governor or chief executive at the time, and his council constituted the upper house. The lower house, the House of Burgesses, was composed of representatives elected from the colony’s various precincts. The lower house could adopt its own rules of procedure and elect its own speaker and other officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Project on Term Limits 2004
    Kansas: A Retro Approach to Lawmaking By Michael A. Smith, The University of Kansas Brenda Erickson, National Conference of State Legislatures Joint Project on Term Limits 2004 National Conference of State Legislatures Council of State Governments State Legislative Leaders’ Foundation 7700 East First Place Denver, CO 80230-7143 (303) 364-7700 • fax (303) 364-7800 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400 • fax (202) 737-1069 http://www.ncsl.org © 2005 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. Introduction Among the fifty state legislatures, Kansas’s might be termed a retro approach to governing. The state lacks the petition initiative, and therefore it also lacks many of the complicating factors that have changed governance in many other U.S. states. Kansas has no citizen-initiated tax cap such as California’s Proposition 13, Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or Missouri’s Hancock Amendment. Furthermore, the state still maintains a citizen legislature with low pay, limited staff, and short sessions. And finally, Kansas does not have term limits on its legislators. The legislative process in Kansas has changed recently to accommodate a more-complex government, a changing political climate, and the advent of new information technology. But overall, Kansas’s Legislature has not changed radically in its functioning during the past ten years. Kansas is unlikely to have legislative term limits anytime in the foreseeable future. Because the Sunflower State lacks the petition initiative, the only way to pass such a policy in the state would be for the legislators themselves to send voters a constitutional amendment limiting their own terms—an unlikely prospect, especially given the near-universal disdain for term limits expressed by legislators during our interviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Section II LEGISLATURES and LEGISLATION 1. Legislative
    I . s . ^ • -• -y- ;•,.-. • ; ,. ; -, /,. •,;.-.^ •• .. ^ "'• " '-"t- Section II LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 1. Legislative Organization and Services 2. Legislation • .••••.4- J • •••••fe^^r^. • "^VV"/. „._'*; T- Qi A-.. ^!^ 0 1 Legislative Organization and Services -T-^ STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES HE citizens of the states through their widely from state to state:—in Idaho there Tconstitutions have vested the su- are forty-four Senators to fifty-nine Rep- preme latv-making power in their resentatives; in New Hampshire there are legislatures. They have provided for the twenty-four Senators to 400 RepresenP**' popular election at frequent intervals of atives. *'. those whoxomprise th^ legislative bodies. With two noteworthy exceptions, only Except in Nebraska they have established minor changes have been made by sta|jes two-house legislatures. during the past biennium in the size of. Beyond these common elements, a wide their legislatures. The exceptions ar$ variety of constitutional provisions, stat- Alaska and Hawaii, which became istate^ utory requirements, rules and preceden^ts during the period under review. In the. govern the workings of the state legisla- former the legislature was increased from tures. Together they determine the many forty to sixty members;" in Hawaii, the details of legislative structure, organiza- total went from forty-five to seventy-six. In tion and procedure, the purpose of which both states, the lower house noyf is ahnost is to enable the legislatures to carry out exactly twice as large as the Senate, their responsibilities in an orderly and "In all states legislative terms are either effective manner. two years or four. State Senators in thirty- „ five states—an increatse of three in the past biZE AND lERMs biennium—serve for four ycarsHn fifteen In Nsize American state legislatures (including Nebraska) they serve for two.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Superintendents
    OHIO Standards For Superintendents Excellence • Commitment • Achievement Members of the 2008 State Board of Education Jennifer Sheets President Heather Heslop Licata Pomeroy Akron Ex Officio Members Jennifer Stewart Robin C. Hovis Senator Joy Padgett Vice President Millersburg Ohio Senate Zanesville Stephen M. Millett Coshocton John R. Bender Columbus Representative Arlene J. Setzer Avon Eric Okerson Ohio House of Representatives Virgil E. Brown, Jr. Cincinnati Vandalia Shaker Heights Emerson J. Ross, Jr. Deborah Cain Toledo Uniontown G. R. “Sam” Schloemer Michael Cochran Cincinnati Blacklick Jane Sonenshein Colleen D. Grady Loveland Strongsville Sue Westendorf Lou Ann Harrold Bowling Green Ada Carl Wick Susan Haverkos Centerville West Chester Ann Womer Benjamin Aurora is document is an official publication of the State Board of Education and the Ohio Department of Education. e information within represents official policy of the State Board. Members of the 2008 State Board of Education Members of the Superintendent Standards Writing Team e members of the superintendent standards writing team included many Ohio superintendents, representing districts statewide – large and small; urban, suburban, and rural. e writing team also included representatives from Ohio’s higher education educational leadership programs, from the Jennifer Sheets Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) to the Ohio Educator Standards Board (ESB), and members currently serving on school President Heather Heslop Licata boards for districts in the state of Ohio. In addition, other Ohio stakeholders were provided with opportunities to review and provide feedback Pomeroy Akron Ex Officio Members during various stages of development of the standards. Jennifer Stewart Robin C. Hovis Senator Joy Padgett Vice President Millersburg Ohio Senate Geoffrey Andrews Ted Kowalski Facilitator Superintendent, Oberlin City Schools University of Dayton Zanesville Stephen M.
    [Show full text]
  • Unicam Kids!: a Visit to Your Nebraska Legislature
    UNICAM KIDS! A Visit to Your Nebraska Legislature guided by George W. Norris, “the father of the Unicameral” Unicam Kids i! I’m George Norris. I represented Nebraska in Congress from 1913 to 1943. Many people call me Hthe father of Nebraska’s Unicameral Legislature. A unicameral is a legislature with just one group of people to make laws. Nebraska has the nation’s only unicameral, which meets here at the Capitol in Lincoln to make laws for the state. I believed this one-house system would serve Nebraskans better than a bicameral, or two-house system, found in every other state. Nebraskans voted to change to a unicameral in 1934, and the first unicameral met in 1937. Let’s go inside. I’ll show you around! Nebraska is unique for its unicameral and also its unusual Capitol building. Architect Bertram Goodhue wanted the Capitol’s design to reflect the spirit of Nebraska’s people. The words and pictures on the outside of the building show Nebraska’s place in the history of law and democracy. The Capitol took 10 years to build and was finished in 1932. The tower rises almost 400 feet and is topped by a 19-foot bronze statue of a man tossing seeds, called “The Sower.” — 1 — A Visit to Your Nebraska Legislature y experience as a lawmaker made me wish for a smoother processM to make laws. I encour- aged Nebraskans to vote for a new, smaller legislature so the process would be simpler and allow for more public input. Some Nebraskans worried about becoming the only unicameral.
    [Show full text]
  • How a Bill Becomes 4
    WELCOME TO THE WISCONSIN STATE ASSEMBLY ince becoming a state in 1848, Wisconsin has continued to demonstrate strong leadership and democracy. Because TABLE OF CONTENTS S 2 ...... Introduction of this proud history, our state has been looked to repeatedly as a national leader in government 4 ...... “The Law Needs to Change” innovation and reform. “How A Bill Becomes 4 ...... WisconsinEye Provides View of the Legislature Law” was created to help visitors understand 5 ...... Deliberation and Examination Wisconsin’s legislative process and provide 5 ...... Making a Good Idea Better suggestions on how citizens can participate in 6 ...... The Importance of Caucuses that process. This booklet explains how one idea 7 ...... First & Second Reading or inspiration becomes a bill and moves through 7 ...... Third Reading and Passage the legislative process and into the law books. 7 ...... On to the Senate It is a long road from initial development of an 8 ...... Assembly Bill 27 idea to the emergence of a new law. During 9 ...... Approval of the Governor and Into the Law Books consideration, the bill will be scrutinized and 9 ...... Conclusion examined, criticized and praised. It will be 10 .... Staying in Touch–How to Contact changed, improved, strengthened, and even Your State Representative weakened. If passed, it will undergo the ultimate 11 .... Find Information Online test of merit—time. 12 .... “How a Bill Becomes Law” Cartoon 13 .... “How a Bill Becomes Law” Flow Chart *Words in bold print are defined in the Glossary at the back of the booklet. 14 .... Glossary In this booklet, the bill used as an example of “How a Bill Becomes Law” is 2015 Assembly Bill 27.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Article
    3 ABOUT WISCONSIN 282 | Wisconsin Blue Book 2019–2020 Menomonie residents celebrated local members of the Wisconsin National Guard who served during the Great War. As Wisconsin soldiers demobilized, policymakers reevaluated the meaning of wartime service—and fiercely debated how the state should recognize veterans’ sacrifices. WHS IMAGE ID 103418 A Hero’s Welcome How the 1919 Wisconsin Legislature overcame divisions to enact innovative veterans legislation following World War I. BY JILLIAN SLAIGHT he Great War seemed strangely distant to Ira Lee Peterson, even as his unit camped mere miles from the front lines in France. Between drills and marches, the twenty-two-year-old Wisconsinite swam in streams, wrote letters home, and slept underneath the stars in apple orchards. TEven in the trenches, the morning of Sunday, June 16, 1918, was “so quiet . that all one could hear was the rats running around bumping into cans and wire.” Peterson sat reading a book until a “whizzing sound” cut through the silence, announcing a bombardment that sent him and his comrades scurrying “quick as gophers” into their dugout.1 After this “baptism with shell fire,” Peterson suffered a succession of horrors: mustard gas inhalation, shrapnel wounds, and a German 283 | Wisconsin Blue Book 2019–2020 COURTESY LINDA PALMER PALMER LINDA COURTESY WILLIAM WESSA, LANGLADE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY HISTORICAL COUNTY LANGLADE WESSA, WILLIAM Before 1914, faith in scientific progress led people to believe that twentieth-century war would be less brutal. In reality, new technologies resulted in unprecedented death and disability. (left) American soldiers suffered the effects of chemical warfare despite training in the use of gas masks.
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]