DOCSLIB.ORG

The New York State Legislative Process: an Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The New York State Legislative Process: an Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM JEREMY M. CREELAN & LAURA M. MOULTON BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM JEREMY M. CREELAN & LAURA M. MOULTON BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW www.brennancenter.org Six years of experience have taught me that in every case the reason for the failures of good legislation in the public interest and the passage of ineffective and abortive legislation can be traced directly to the rules. New York State Senator George F. Thompson Thompson Asks Aid for Senate Reform New York Times, Dec. 23, 1918 Some day a legislative leadership with a sense of humor will push through both houses resolutions calling for the abolition of their own legislative bodies and the speedy execution of the members. If read in the usual mumbling tone by the clerk and voted on in the usual uninquiring manner, the resolution will be adopted unanimously. Warren Moscow Politics in the Empire State (Alfred A. Knopf 1948) The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law unites thinkers and advocates in pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy. Our mission is to develop and implement an innovative, nonpartisan agenda of scholarship, public education, and legal action that promotes equality and human dignity, while safeguarding fundamental freedoms. The Center operates in the areas of Democracy, Poverty, and Criminal Justice. Copyright 2004 by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents the extensive work and dedication of many people. The initial research was the brainchild of Eric Lane, Eric J. Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law at Hofstra Law School, without whose expertise in the New York State legislative process and guidance the report would never have been completed. Evan Davis and Frederick A. O. Schwarz each provided not only ongoing inspiration for the project and invaluable insights into the workings of New York State government, but also lent significant resources from their respective law firms, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Cravath Swaine & Moore, to complete the research for this report. In particular, Jaime Lubbock, a paralegal at Cleary Gottlieb and soon-to-be distinguished lawyer, conducted extensive research over many months despite the many demands on her time. Tricia Beckles, Michael Delehanty, Laura Gavioli, Victor Goldfeld, Anil Kalhan, Nicholas Marantz, and Sarah Samis contributed significant research as well. Tara Herman, a law student in the Brennan Center Clinic, provided critical research over almost a year. Gerald Benjamin, John Dyson, Diana Fortuna, Blair Horner, Frank Mauro, Jeffrey Stonecash, and Robert Ward each read and improved the report immeasurably with their critical commentary and recommendations. In addition, many sitting members of the Assembly and Senate and innumerable staff members in both chambers provided thoughtful feedback and information throughout the process. The Assembly Public Information Office and Senate Journal Clerk’s Office responded to our many requests for information with courtesy and professionalism. Brenda Erickson at the National Conference of State Legislatures provided invaluable assistance in response to our numerous requests for information. Finally, colleagues at the Brennan Center – Deborah Goldberg, Tom Gerety, Scott Schell, and Annette Bernhardt – each contributed their time and wisdom throughout. Of course, any errors in the report are the authors’ alone. This report was made possible by grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Institute, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. CONTENTS Executive Summary. vii Introduction . 1 New York State’s Legislative Process . 5 The Short Legislative Process . 5 Consideration by Committees . 5 Referral of Legislation to Committees. 7 Committee Hearings. 7 Committee Meetings. 9 Committee Reports . 11 Committee Staffing . 11 Committee Assignments . 13 Reporting Bills Out of Committee . 14 Restrictions on Discharge Motions . 14 Options for Committee Votes . 18 The Rules Committees . 20 The Legislative Calendars . 21 Debate and Amendments on the Floor . 22 Debate . 23 Amendments. 25 Passage in Each Chamber . 26 Messages of Necessity . 27 Voting Procedures . 30 End-of-Session Passage . 34 Vote Outcomes . 34 Reconciling Bills Passed by Each Chamber . 35 Enactment Rates and the Introduction of Bills . 36 A Comparative Summary of New York’s Legislative Process . 39 The Impact of New York’s Dysfunctional Legislative Process. 42 Failed Representation . 43 Legislation Delayed or Not Passed. 44 Legislators Unable to Legislate . 46 Ineffective Government Without Deliberativeness . 46 Committees: An Untapped Resource . 46 Inadequate Review of Legislation . 47 Inaccessible Government. 49 The Absence of Accountability . 50 Inefficiency . 51 Courts Without Guidance . 52 Recommendations for Reform . 53 Endnotes . 57 Methodology . 77 Appendices . 80 vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I INTRODUCTION New York State’s legislative process is broken. This report documents five key weaknesses and compares New York’s process with those in other state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress. Together, the problems identified here deprive New Yorkers of the government they deserve. Indeed, New York’s legislative process limits legislators’ consideration of legislation – whether counted in hearings, debate, amendments, readings, conference committees, or even simply legislators’ presence when they vote – far more than any other legislature. Neither the U.S. Congress nor any other state legislature so systematically limits the roles played by rank-and-file legislators and members of the public in the legislative process. Fortunately, many of the shortcomings of the current system can be remedied without new legislation or constitutional amendments. Mere changes in the rules of the Senate and Assembly would make a significant difference. For this reason, these reforms need not become the victim of the very legislative dysfunction they seek to repair. This report identifies rules changes in five areas that together would make the New York State Legislature more representative, more deliberative, more acces- sible and accountable to the public, and more efficient. These proposed changes are organized here in the order of the legislative process itself – from a bill’s intro- duction and consideration by a committee, to its passage by the full Senate or Assembly, to the final reconciliation of the two chambers’ separate bills into a single bill for final passage. Each chamber of the Legislature has complete control over whether or not to adopt these changes independent of each other and of the Governor. In January 2005, they will vote on the rules that govern their respective operations. Members of the Senate and Assembly who care about meaningful democracy in New York should seize that opportunity to adopt the changes recommended here. New York State’s voters should urge their representatives in Albany to reform the system now. PROBLEM # 1 I DYSFUNCTIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES In most modern legislatures, committees “are the locus of most legislative activity.”1 Committees have two principal functions: first, to enable legislators to develop, examine, solicit public and expert feedback upon, and improve bills in a specific area of expertise and to convey the results of their work to the full chamber; and second, to oversee certain administrative agencies to ensure that they fulfill their statutory mandates. New York’s committee system generally does not serve either of these functions: viii THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM Few Committee Hearings. Only 0.5% of the major bills passed by the Assembly and 0.7% of the major bills passed by the Senate from 1997 through 2001 were the subject of a hearing devoted to their consideration.2 Few Committee Reports. Only 1.1% of the major bills passed by the Assembly and 0% of the major bills passed by the Senate from 1997 through 2001 were the subject of committee reports. Proxy Voting. Senate rules permit committee members to cast their votes by proxy. Only five other legislative chambers (out of 99) – including only one other chamber comparable to New York’s “professional” legislature, the Pennsylvania Senate – allow proxy voting in committee.3 Central Control of Committee Staff. In New York, the Assembly Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader hire – and have the power to fire – commit- tee staff. New York’s two chambers are among only 32 (out of 99) that give any role at all to the legislative leadership or party caucuses. In fact, 26 state legislatures rely on a central, nonpartisan staff agency for their committee staff support. New York’s centralized control over staff discourages commit- tee chairpersons from developing and promoting legislation without leader- ship support. Too Many Committee Assignments. The New York State Senate has more standing committees (32) than all but one other state senate (Mississippi, at 35). The New York State Assembly is ranked fifth among houses with 37 standing committees. The proliferation of committees saddles lawmakers with an excessive number of committee assignments, and threatens the qual- ity of committee work. It is only the overall inactivity of committees in New York that renders this problem less acute
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HPI Analysis: Rokita's Senate Edge
    V23, N15 Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017 HPI Analysis: Rokita’s Senate edge While no one has GOP race locked up, Rokita is closer than many might think By MARK SOUDER FORT WAYNE – Obviously, Congressman Todd Rokita has not locked up the Republican nomination for Senate yet, but he is closer than most think. It is no surprise that Rokita has a significant early lead. He has twice run and won statewide for secretary of state, as well as serving as a congressman. Rokita’s district, like that of his fellow Wabash College graduate, Congressman Luke Messer, includes important parts of the Indianapolis metro area (the U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita brandishing his “defeat the elite” campaign at the State- heavily Republican donut). In a statewide Repub- house last summer. (HPI Photo by Brian A. Howey) lican primary election, the Indianapolis metro area dominates. received publicity in the Indianapolis market over mul- As media fragments, the difficulty of establish- tiple years is critical. Beyond that, in addition to Rokita’s ing name identification exponentially increases. The fact secretary of state advertising and statewide travels, he that Rokita and Messer have purchased advertising and Continued on page 3 Tax reform, Reagan style By BRIAN A. HOWEY NASHVILLE, Ind. – Step aboard Howey’s Way Back Machine to 1985 and 1986, when it was morning in America and President Ronald Reagan wielded moral authority and an ability for cutting deals to achieve great “We will use a healthy dialogue outcomes. The Way Back Machine with the people of Indiana to reveals that the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which simplified the form the basis for proposals we income tax code, broadened the will be advancing during the 2018 tax base and eliminated many tax shelters, was sponsored by General Assembly and beyond.” Democrats Richard Gephardt in - House Minority Leader the House and Bill Bradley in the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Handy Guide for Homeless Women in Regional Queensland
    THE HANDY GUIDE FOR HOMELESS WOMEN IN REGIONAL QUEENSLAND 2019-2021 v9.0 ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION © 2019 The Lady Musgrave Trust, Brisbane. The Handy Guide for Homeless Women in Title: Regional Queensland (2nd edition) provides The Handy Guide for Homeless Women in vital support for women who are without Regional Queensland (2019-2021 Edition) shelter or at risk of becoming homeless. Details First published: include: 2017. Brisbane, Australia • Emergency Phone Numbers Author/Contributors: • Accommodation such as drop-in support The Lady Musgrave Trust, Centacare, centres, accommodation units and housing Griffith University and the Queensland services Department of Housing and Public Works, • Food and welfare; such as food vans, The Working Group (represented by various kitchens and Centrelink Agencies), Yet Another Creative • Health services such as hospitals, street Edited by: doctors and community health centres Karen Lyon Reid, CEO, • Legal assistance for tenancy/housing The Lady Musgrave Trust problems, and victims of crime Graphic Design by: • Community and specialist services for Rowland. domestic violence support, family and Communication, Digital and Creative Agency immigration support 07 3229 4499 • Facilities such as public libraries, lockers, free rowland.com.au transport and toilets Content-Editing & Layout by: • Employment Stephen Scott This publication originated as a partnership Yet Another Creative between The Lady Musgrave Trust, Centacare, 0410 697 314 the Department of Housing and Public Works, yetanother.co Griffith University and the Forum Working Printed by: Group. Q Print Group 07 3262 3100 qprintgroup.com.au No. of Pages: 112 CONTACT THE LADY MUSGRAVE TRUST TO: • obtain additional copies of this publication • add or correct contacts for future editions 07 3077 6760 [email protected] ladymusgravetrust.org.au Digital Edition: 2.1 Has the Guide been Handy for you? Whether you've used the Guide to help you in tough times, or if you use the Guide in your work to help others, we'd love to know what we're doing right ..
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Constitution Article I ARTICLE II
    Preamble We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. ARTICLE I. STATE BOUNDARIES 1. Designation of boundaries The boundaries of the State of Arizona shall be as follows, namely: Beginning at a point on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, as fixed by the Gadsden Treaty between the United States and Mexico, being in latitude thirty-two degrees, twenty-nine minutes, forty-four and forty-five one- hundredths seconds north and longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, forty-eight minutes, forty-four and fifty-three one -hundredths seconds west of Greenwich; thence along and with the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico in a southeastern direction to Monument Number 127 on said boundary line in latitude thirty- one degrees, twenty minutes north; thence east along and with said parallel of latitude, continuing on said boundary line to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred nine degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one-hundredths seconds west, being identical with the southwestern corner of New Mexico; thence north along and with said meridian of longitude and the west boundary of New Mexico to an intersection with the parallel of latitude thirty-seven degrees north, being the common corner of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico; thence west along and with said parallel of latitude and the south boundary of Utah to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one- hundredths seconds west, being on the east boundary line of the State of Nevada; thence south along and with said meridian of longitude and the east boundary of said State of Nevada, to the center of the Colorado River; thence down the mid-channel of said Colorado River in a southern direction along and with the east boundaries of Nevada, California, and the Mexican Territory of Lower California, successively, to the place of beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • CAO Semiannual Report January – June 2011
    CAO Semiannual Report January – June 2011 Submitted August 15, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Chief Administrative Officer ........................................................................1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................3 Timeline .............................................................................................................................4 About Chief Administrative Officer Dan Strodel .....................................................5 Finance New Financial System ....................................................................................................5 Payroll and Benefits ........................................................................................................6 Procurement Management ...........................................................................................7 Assets, Furnishings, and Logistics Carpet Cleaning ..............................................................................................................8 Renovation of Cannon Caucus Room .........................................................................8 Furniture Refurbishment ................................................................................................8 Graphics ............................................................................................................................8 Transition Survey .............................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • General Operators for PDF, Common to All Language Levels
    STATE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 2004 Legislative Elections By Tim Storey Before launching into the analysis of the 2004 state legislative elections, it is instructive to go back two years to the last major legislative elections. The year 2002 was a banner year for the Republican Party in legislatures; they seized eight legislative chambers and claimed bragging rights by taking the majority of legislative seats nationwide for the first time in 50 years. When it comes to state legislatures, Democrats Control of Legislative Seats bounced back big in 2004 despite their defeat at the Perhaps the parity in state legislatures is best top of the ticket where George Bush extended his understood by looking at the total number of seats stay in the White House by defeating John Kerry by held by each party. There are 7,382 total legislative a relatively close 35 electoral vote margin. The seats in the 50 states. Of those, 7,316 are held by Democrats took control of seven legislative cham- partisans from the two major political parties. Third bers and had a quasi-victory by gaining ties in both party legislators hold 16 seats, and Nebraska voters the Iowa Senate and Montana House—both con- choose the 49 senators there in a non-partisan trolled by the GOP before the election. The Demo- election. As of mid-January 2005, the difference crats also regained the title of holding the most seats between the two major parties was a miniscule one although their margin is a tiny fraction of 1 percent— seat, with the advantage going to the Democrats.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Legislature Details
    Alabama Legislature WHERE IS THE ALABAMA STATE HOUSE LOCATED? The Alabama State House is located at 11 South Union Street in Montgomery. The House of Representatives chamber is on the 5th floor and the public viewing gallery for the House is located on the 6th floor. The Alabama Senate chamber is on the 7th floor and the public viewing gallery for the Senate is located on the 8th floor. WHAT ABOUT LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS? The 2021 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature will convene on February 2. The Legislature convenes in regular annual sessions on the first Tuesday in February, except (1) in the first year of the four-year term, when the session will begin on the first Tuesday in March, and (2) in the last year of a four-year term, when the session will begin on the second Tuesday in January. The length of the regular session is limited to 30 meeting days within a period of 105 calendar days. There are usually two meeting or “legislative” days per week, with other days devoted to committee meetings. Special sessions of the Legislature may be called by the Governor, with the Proclamation listing the subjects which the Governor wishes considered. These sessions are limited to 12 legislative days within a 30 calendar day span. In a regular session, bills may be enacted on any subject. In a special session, legislation must be enacted only on those subjects which the Governor announces in his proclamation or “call.” Anything not in the “call” requires a two-thirds vote of each house to be enacted Every four years (quadrennium), the members of the House and Senate must reorganize the Legislature, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Listlist - New Information
    12.012.0 DistributionDistribution ListList - New Information - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) pro- vided copies of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to Federal, state, and local elected and appointed officials and agencies of government; Native American groups; national, state, and local environmental and public interest groups; and other organizations and individuals list- ed below. In addition, DOE sent copies of the Final EIS to all persons who comment- ed on the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement; these individuals are list- ed in the Index (Alphabetical List of Commentors by Name) in Chapter 11 of this Final EIS. Other groups that received copies of the Final EIS but are not listed below are internal Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and DOE employees, media representa- tives, and EIS project staff, as well as DOE reading rooms, which appear in Section 8 of the Final EIS Summary. 12-1 DOE/EIS-0287 Distribution List - New Information - In preparation for distribution of the Final EIS, The Honorable Ron Wyden DOE mailed postcards to EIS stakeholders, United States Senate (Oregon) inviting them to request copies of the document in various formats. DOE also issued press The Honorable Robert F. Bennett releases to Idaho media outlets, announcing the United States Senate (Utah) upcoming publication of the Final EIS and describing the document request process. DOE The Honorable Orrin Hatch will provide copies to other interested organiza- United
    [Show full text]
  • State Legislative Update
    Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2004 Issue 2 Article 4 2004 State Legislative Update Robert J. Fisher Katherine M. Massa Benjamin B. Nelson Cassandra A. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Robert J. Fisher, Katherine M. Massa, Benjamin B. Nelson, and Cassandra A. Rogers, State Legislative Update, 2004 J. Disp. Resol. (2004) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2004/iss2/4 This Legislation is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fisher et al.: Fisher: State Legislative Update State Legislative Update* Robert J. Fischer Katherine M. Massa Benjamin B. Nelson CassandraA. Rogers I. STATE LEGISLATIVE Focus A. Confidentiality in Mediation: FloridaSenate Bill 1970' Bill Number: Florida Senate Bill 1970 Summary: This bill creates the Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act. It provides for standardized proceedings, so that both court-ordered and non court-ordered mediation are entitled to the same confidentiality status. Status: Signed by Governor, June 10, 2004 1. Introduction Confidentiality in mediation communications is an issue of vital importance to all those involved. The assurance of confidentiality in mediation proceedings promotes openness and candor between the parties. Often, it is openness that will lead parties to a resolution of a dispute. With the passage of Senate Bill 1970 the Florida legislature has recognized the importance that confidentiality protections play in the encouragement of successful mediations.
    [Show full text]
  • John J. Marchi Papers
    John J. Marchi Papers PM-1 Volume: 65 linear feet • Biographical Note • Chronology • Scope and Content • Series Descriptions • Box & Folder List Biographical Note John J. Marchi, the son of Louis and Alina Marchi, was born on May 20, 1921, in Staten Island, New York. He graduated from Manhattan College with first honors in 1942, later receiving a Juris Doctor from St. John’s University School of Law and Doctor of Judicial Science from Brooklyn Law School in 1953. He engaged in the general practice of law with offices on Staten Island and has lectured extensively to Italian jurists at the request of the State Department. Marchi served in the Coast Guard and Navy during World War II and was on combat duty in the Atlantic and Pacific theatres of war. Marchi also served as a Commander in the Active Reserve after the war, retiring from the service in 1982. John J. Marchi was first elected to the New York State Senate in the 1956 General Election. As a Senator, he quickly rose to influential Senate positions through the chairmanship of many standing and joint committees, including Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on the City of New York. In 1966, he was elected as a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Issues. That same year, Senator Marchi was named Chairman of the New York State Joint Legislative Committee on Interstate Cooperation, the oldest joint legislative committee in the Legislature. Other senior state government leadership positions followed, and this focus on state government relations and the City of New York permeated Senator Marchi’s career for the next few decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary of Report by Illinois Assembly on Political
    ILLINOIS ASSEMBLY ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION AND ALTERNATIVE # ELECTORAL SYSTEMS E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y ILLINOIS ASSEMBLY ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION AND ALTERNATIVE #ELECTORAL SYSTEMS E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y S P R I N G 2 0 0 1 2 CONTENTS Foreword ..................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................ 7 Background .............................................................................................. 15 Participants, Illinois Assembly on Political Representation & Alternative Electoral Systems................................................................ 25 Appendix. A Comparison of Selected Electoral Systems .................. 29 Executive Summary, Report on Political Representation and Alternative Electoral Systems I 3 4 FOREWORD In Spring 2000, the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois created the Illinois Task Force on Political Representation and Alternative Electoral Systems. Governor Jim Edgar and Judge Abner Mikva served as co-chairs. The task force examined the effects of the change from cumulative to plurality voting in Illinois House elections, gathered information about alternative electoral systems that are used throughout the world, and considered how and how well those systems work in other regions of the country and world. With that information in hand, they brought together leaders from politics, the media, academe, business, and nonprofit organizations for the Illinois assembly on Political Representation and Alternative Electoral Systems. The assembly met to explore the pros and cons of various electoral systems as they might be used in Illinois House elections. I am happy to present you with the final report of the Illinois Assembly. This report is very timely. Work on reapportionment and redistricting of local, state, and federal legislative districts has already begun.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Breakthrough for Seven with US Commission for My Kitchen Rules
    Major breakthrough for Seven with US commission for My Kitchen Rules FOX Broadcasting Company signs Seven to create My Kitchen Rules for the United States television market The Seven Network – Australia’s most-watched broadcast television platform and a key business of Seven West Media, one of Australia’s leading integrated media and content creation companies - today announced its next move in its long-term strategy in the development and creation of market-leading content in international markets. Building on the increasing international recognition of Seven’s created and produced My Kitchen Rules, the company today confirmed that FOX Broadcasting Company (FOX), one of the “big four” television networks in the United States has signed Seven to create and produce My Kitchen Rules for the United States. The programme – a celebrity version of the successful format - has commenced filming. Today’s signing with FOX for the United States builds on Seven’s agreement to create and produce My Kitchen Rules for Channel 4 in the United Kingdom and joins New Zealand, Serbia, Russia, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Germany and Lithuania with “local” versions of the Seven format. In addition, the Australian version of My Kitchen Rules is seen in more than 160 territories around the world. Commenting, the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Seven West Media, Tim Worner, said: “We are very excited to be working with FOX on this one. My Kitchen Rules is truly a labour of love for all of us at Seven. It has played and continues to play such an important role across all parts of our business.
    [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]