DOCSLIB.ORG

Section II LEGISLATURES and LEGISLATION I. Legislative Organization and Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section II LEGISLATURES and LEGISLATION I. Legislative Organization and Services Section II ^ LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION I. Legislative Organization and Services 2. ation ^ SI v^ Legislative Organization and ServiGes STRUCTIJRE AND PROCEDURES •'»,•.-* ' BY WALTER T. GRIBBEN* ppoRTiOiNMENT problems continued commission provided for the purpose by to stand out in legislative activities the Legislature. In a few States apportion­ A*• during the 1966-67 biennium, but ment plans are still temporary, and the emerging theme was one of change in further action will be needed to fulfill other respects also—modernization of the judicial mandates, either legislatively or deliberative setting, removal of anti­ by constitutional amendment. Otherwise, quated restrictions, acceptance of new 1966-67 was a time for perfecting appor­ technolog)', revision of structures and tionment programs in anticipation of o|x;rating procedures, and improvement further action after the 1970 census. in compensation andworkingTonditions. When a chapter corresponding to this A spirit of modernization was marked in was written in late 1965 for the preceding the state capitols, reflecting new public edition of The Book of the States, only interest and involvement in legislative three Legislatures had not been reappor­ affkirs and concern for restoi-ation of the tioned since the decennial census of 1960: Legislature iis an equal force in American Minnesota's, where a 1965 apportion-: state government. -- ment plan was vetoed;- Pennsylvania's, where the State Supreme Court assumed APPORTIONMENT the task because of legislative disagree­ Since the 5flAer v. C^rr decision of the ment; nnd Rhode Island's, where a legis­ U.S. Supreme Gourt.in 1962, apportion­ lative commission waS establisheci to ment has followed a Tong, and in some supervise a state census and propose an States arduous, course. By the end of 1967 apportionment plan. By the end of 1967, eveiy State had revised representational reapportionment had been accomplished \ districts for at least oneand inmost cases in all States, although several were ap^ both of its legislative houses, but only one proved only for interim periods, arid State had managed to do so without litiga-, Legislatures began the job of making tion. Judicial intervention notwithstand­ minor adjustments foi- problems which ing, the reapportionment record of the- -had- been-overlooked and those which Legislatures was impressive. In only ten subsequently appeared. States were disagreements so substantial Temporary plans have been in" effect in that a, court was forced, to draw new dis­ nine States where legislative apportion­ <a& • trict lines for one or both houses. In all ment efforts were approved only for short- other States reapportionment was ac­ term use: Delaware was required to reap­ complished by legislative ^tion or by a portion again by January 10, 1968; Kansas had until April 1, 1968, to draw *Mr. Gribben is Midwestern Regional Director new Senate districts; it was necessary for df the Council of State Governments and^Secre- tar)' of the Committee on Legislative Riilcs of the lowai Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon and South National Legislative Conference. Carolina to reapportif)n for the 1968 elec- 89 ^ 40 THE BOOK OF THE STATES tiohs; Texas, iicting under court orders, gubernatorial board, and in New York recently eliminated temporary flotorial the Senate was reapportioned by a court, • districts. Hawaii's reapportioned Senate • the House by a commission. was to continue only until a 1968 consti­ • The Alabama flouse and the Senates of tutional convention could make perma­ New Mexico and Wyoming were reappor­ nent arrangements for both houses. The tioned by courts, the other houses by the Governor of Alaska, invoking his execu^ Legislature. tive powers, appointed a board to reap­ In theory at least, the one-man, one- portion the Senate, and the action was vote principle should produce a repre­ upheld in a subsequent court dispute. sentational ratio in which a majority of Apportionment of both houses, howevep, the legislators in each house are certain will be reconsidered before . the 1970 to be elected by a majority of the people. census. In 4 practice, reapjDortionment did not During thp biennium, constitutional quite reach that goal. In only two States. amendments on apportionment were ap­ —Arizona and Michigan—has the theo­ proved by voters in Colorado, Georgia, retical majority ratio been achieved for Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Tennessee both houses.. Representational majorities and Wyoming, and a proposal was re­ otherwise exist in the Colorado House jected in Nebraska. Parts of the Georgia and the Senates of Alaska, Delaware,. plan subsequently were invalidated by a Florida, Maine, Missouri and New U.S. District Gourt. An apportionment Hampshire. It was nearly achieved in plan based upjdn registered voters rather nine States in which an even 50 per cent than population was invalidated by the of the legislators represent a majority of Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. the people: the Florida House and the It was expected that apportionment also Senates of Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, would be on the agenda of a Pennsylvania Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio> Pennsyl­ constitutional convention to be held in vania and Rhode Island. In all. other 1968. cases, a majority of legislators represent Since Baker v. Can, apportionnient less than half the popiilafion, ranging activities have been attended by litigation down to 43 per cent for the Houses of in forty-nine States; only Maine iias Georgia and Maine, "46 "per cent for the avoided a court dispute. New Mexico Senate. With reapportionment completed, if Although mathematical perfection was only temporarily in a few caseS; state ac­ accomplished in so few cases, the contriist tions may be recapitulated as follows: __, With pre-apportionment days is startling. • Durihg 1966 and 1967, fifteen States re­ In 1962, representation ranged from a apportioned both House and Senate: high of 48 per cent in one Hou^e and two ^ Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Loui­ Senates t.o. lows of 12 per cent"iiii'"three siana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Houses and 8 per cent in one Senate. New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, As Legislatures and other apportioning, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode IsTarfd and agencies sought to unravel the* knotty Tennessee; Alaska, Maine, New Mexico; problems of equal representation, they and South Carolina apportioned their tui-ned to experimental devices when Senates, and Kansas its House. division of population proved overly dif­ • Since 1962, Legislatures have reappor­ ficult- or .unwieldy. Among the most tioned tliemselves in thirty-three States. widely—U'sert. were multimember and • Both houses were apportioned by a floterial districts, the latter b^ing groups court in eight States: Arizona, Florida, of single-member districts which are com­ Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Okla­ bined for the purpose of electing one or homa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. more additional legislators. The States • Apportionment of both House and also use. two kinds of multimember dis­ Senate was accomplished by a board or tricts; those in which members are elected commission in four: Arkansas, Illinois, "at large," andthpse in which each candi­ Missouri and Ohiis. date in'a" district runs for and is elected • The Alaska House was revised by a torn specific, numbered seat. LEGISTlATlJRES AND LEGISLATION 41 House and Senate districts are single- •"Although population is now the basis member in sixteen States: California,' ot apportionment plans in nearly all Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kan­ States, several Legislatures have experi­ sas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New mented with other devices. Hawaii tus­ Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, sled for some tijne with the problem of a Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and-: population distributed among eight, Wisconsin. Multirnember districts are widely-separated islands. A plan,.,based used exclusively in the West Virginia upon registered voter distribution was Senate and .the Houses of Arizona, Illinois finally approved by the court on the and North Dakota. Combinations of the theory that it conformed generally to -two-(in some instances with floterial dis­ population patterns. At one point, the. tricts), are used in twenty-two States for Nebraska Senate devised a system of dis­ the Senate and thirty for the House. tricts weighted by both population aiui The numberof multimember districts area, but it did not survive judicial chal­ follo\vS no discernible paltern.For Senate lenge. Several States also have considered use, they range; in number from sixteen weighted votes; that is, assigning varying districts in West Virginia, which uses values to the votes of the various members rhem exclusively, to two each in Alaska of a legislative body, according to the size and Nevada. We^t Virginia excepted, the of the constituency. In the years immejjii- Senates of Maryland (fourteen of sixteen ately following the U.S. Supreme Court districts) and Hawaii (seven of eight dis­ reapportionment decisions, this approach tricts) make the greatest proportionate" "w'as suggested for expediency by courts in use of multimemberdistricts, and South Maryland and Washington (where it Was Dakota (three of tweniy-i'iiue) the least. later withdrawn), and" weighted voting Multimember. House districts vary plans were ruled invalid by courts in from 193 in New Hampshire (which has a Mississippi, Oklahoma, New Mexico, House membership of 400) to eight in New Jersey and New A'ork. New Mexico .Arizona. Proportionate House use is.high votei*s rejected a constitutional amend- in Florida (twenty-one of t:(Venty-four dis­ ,nient which would have permitted tricts) and low ill Tennessee (eleven of weighted voting in one hous'e.^ ^ninety-three districts). ; . The number of seats per multiple dis­ ' • SIZES AND TERMS trict is equally varied. Arizona" has as Apportionment also bre^ught signifi­ many as fifteen seats in a Senate district cant changes in tlie sizes of Legislatures. and thirty in a Houses-district. The By November 1, 1967,' there were 7,6'I5 Senate low is in North Carolina, with legislative seats in the fifty States, 219 less three seats; the House low, in Idaho and tha:n in the previous biennium.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Committee Handbook New Mexico Legislature
    COMMITTEE HANDBOOK for the NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE New Mexico Legislative Council Service Santa Fe, New Mexico 2012 REVISION prepared by: The New Mexico Legislative Council Service 411 State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 986-4600 www.nmlegis.gov 202.190198 PREFACE Someone once defined a committee as a collection of people who individually believe that something must be done and who collectively decide that nothing can be done. Whether or not this definition has merit, it is difficult to imagine the work of a legislative body being accomplished without reliance upon the committee system. Every session, American legislative bodies are faced with thousands of bills, resolutions and memorials upon which to act. Meaningful deliberation on each of these measures by the entire legislative body is not possible. Therefore, the job must be broken up and distributed among the "miniature legislatures" called standing or substantive committees. In New Mexico, where the constitution confines legislative action to a specified number of calendar days, the work of such committees assumes even greater importance. Because the role of committees is vital to the legislative process, it is necessary for their efficient operation that individual members of the senate and house and their staffs understand committee functioning and procedure, as well as their own roles on the committees. For this reason, the legislative council service published in 1963 the first Committee Handbook for New Mexico legislators. This publication is the sixth revision of that document. i The Committee Handbook is intended to be used as a guide and working tool for committee chairs, vice chairs, members and staff.
    [Show full text]
  • "Opportunities for South Dakota" Report
    Opportunities for South Dakota Office of the Executive Director June 2003 Message from the Executive Director Armed with these issues during roundtables and other information about discussions with the Regents and its leadership. long-term The Regents’ partners in education, those in the demographic K-12 community, have been willing participants shifts taking place in multiple discussions. These have included in South Dakota, meetings with the South Dakota Board of the Board of Education, school leadership groups, the state’s Regents initiated a teachers, and several local school boards. discussion in Obviously, there are many others who might have March 2002 been consulted. Nonetheless, the variety of about South backgrounds of those involved has provided a solid Dakota’s future base for understanding the critical issues. educational opportunities. Linked to ever-present This report offers a synthesis of many ideas conversations about maximizing resource and opportunities. With continued examination investments in state services, including higher and dialogue, these ideas may make a difference education and the special schools, along with in long-term policy and actions. Hopefully, questions about how South Dakota would somewhere within the context of the 14 respond to changes in the national and opportunities identified, there is sufficient room international economy, this dialogue became an to address any substantive policy item that arises. opportunity to think more about where we are and where we might go. This is not a plan or roadmap for South Dakota regental policy and action. It is a tool, At the Regents’ direction, the Executive however, for continuing the review and Director was tasked with preparing a report on development of ideas.
    [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]
  • Accountability Report
    Accountability Report Summer 2007 Policy Goal #1: Access: Every qualified South Dakotan shall have access to public postsecondary education. Policy Goal #2: Quality: South Dakota public universities and special schools shall provide a quality educational experience. Policy Goal #3: State Wealth: South Dakota public universities shall engage in activities designed to enhance the state’s long–term economy. Policy Goal #4: Efficiencies: South Dakota public universities and special schools shall continue to seek means for improving efficiency in the delivery of educational services. * Information in this publication was produced by Regents Information Systems unless otherwise noted. 1 Accountability Report 2006-2007 Policy Goal #1: Access: Every qualified South Dakotan shall have access to public postsecondary education. 1. Strengthen the connection of universities in the preparation for postsecondary education in the K-12 community. 2. Educate a greater proportion of high school graduates and the adult working population. 3. Increase retention and graduation rates. 2 Public higher education recognizes that Access curriculum delivery today must respond to the state's changing environment. Strategies are focused on K-12 preparation, non-traditional students, and improved retention and graduation rates. System Enrollment • Enrollment has continued to grow steadily. System Enrollment Fall Total Head Count Enrollment 30,720 30,901 29,533 29,716 29,844 28,446 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Retention • Emphasis is placed on the importance of retaining
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Voting
    Short Report: Electronic Voting 15 SR 001 Date: April 13, 2015 by: Matthew Sackett, Research Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: Introduction Part II: General Overview of Electronic Voting Systems Part III: Summary of National Conference of State Legislatures Research on Electronic Voting (Survey) Part IV: Wyoming Legislature’s process and procedures relating to vote taking and recording Part V: Conclusion Attachments: Attachment A: NCSL Survey Results WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE • 213 State Capitol • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 TELEPHONE (307) 777-7881 • FAX (307) 777-5466 • EMAIL • [email protected] • WEBSITE http://legisweb.state.wy.us Page 2 PART I: INTRODUCTION As part of the Capitol renovation process, the Select Committee on Legislative Technology asked LSO staff to prepare an update to a report that was done for them previously (2008) about electronic voting systems. The previous report included as its main focus a survey conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) to other states that asked a variety of questions on electronic voting both in terms of equipment and legislative procedures. For purposes of this update, LSO again reached out to Ms. Brenda Erickson, a staff specialist knowledgeable in the areas of electronic voting and voting process and procedure from NCSL, to again conduct a survey related to process and procedure of other states related to electronic voting. Before engaging in a discussion of electronic voting systems, it is important to recognize that electronic voting systems are tools for facilitating legislative business. These systems are subject to legislative rules, processes and procedures. It is the implementation, and subsequent enforcement, of legislative rules and procedures related to voting process, not just the systems technology, which create accountability in the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    2015 EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES ANNUAL REPORT For years, Education Commission of the States was known as a data-based organization that conducted research and produced education policy reports. While we still track policy, conduct research and create insightful reports, we are so much more than just data. Today, we research, report, counsel and convene. Education Commission of the States serves as a partner to state policymakers by providing personalized support, and helping education leaders come together and learn from one another. Through our programs and services, policymakers gain the insight and experience needed to create effective education policy. 700 Broadway, Suite 810, Denver, CO 80203 www.ecs.org | @EdCommission At Education Commission of the States, we believe in the power of learning from experience. Every day, we provide education leaders with unbiased information and opportunities for collaboration. We do this because we know that informed policy makers create better education policy. 700 Broadway, Suite 810, Denver, CO 80203 www.ecs.org | @EdCommission RESEARCH We create and maintain online databases and resources that allow policymakers to quickly research policies in other states. 700 Broadway, Suite 810, Denver, CO 80203 www.ecs.org | @EdCommission RESEARCH We create and maintain online databases and resources that allow policymakers to quickly research policies in other states. Our STATE LEGISLATION database features nearly 44,000 education laws from 1994 to present, searchable by state, topic, past month or year. This signature Education Commission of the States product, updated weekly, contains research on more than 300 topics in categories such as accountability, assessments, standards/curriculum, financial aid and much more.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Speaker Bios
    5th Annual KIDS 2017 KIDS COUNT Conference Conference Speaker Biographies Don Simonson: Co-Chair, NM Voices for Children Board of Directors Dr. Simonson earned his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and is professor emeritus in nance and banking at the University of New Mexico. He has authored books on bank management and held endowed chairs in nance and banking at the University of Oklahoma, University of Missouri, Kansas City, and UNM. He has served as a nancial sector advisor-in-residence at several central banks in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia. Allen Sanchez: President and CEO, CHI St. Joseph’s Children During his long tenure at CHI St. Joseph’s Children, Mr. Sanchez directed the startup of the largest home visiting program in the United States serving families with children from prenatal to age three. He also serves as the executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops advocating for the well-being of children. Amber Wallin: KIDS COUNT Director, New Mexico Voices for Children As KIDS COUNT director, Ms. Wallin creates the annual data book and special reports, and oversees the New Mexico pages of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT Data Center. She also researches policies on early childhood, tax and budget, food security, and family economic security issues. She came to NM Voices in 2012 as a fellow from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ State Priorities Partnership program, after which she joined the sta as a research and policy analyst. Prior to joining NM Voices, Ms. Wallin served as a budget analyst for the city of Las Cruces.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Winter Commissioners Meeting Roster
    2016 Winter Commissioners Meeting Roster ALASKA Nancy Norman Christopher Cross Education Consultant Distinguished Senior Fellow Norman Consultant Services Cross & Joftus, LLC Hon. Gary Stevens Debbie Feinberg Member, Senate Education Committee Senior Director of Marketing, Communications Alaska State Senate and Development AVID Center ALABAMA Erika Hughes Stephanie Bell Director of Corporate Affairs Member LessonLab a Pearson Education Company Alabama State Board of Education Leslie Schwarze Sally Howell Strategic Partnerships Director Executive Director Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Alabama Association of School Boards Steve Silberman Caroline Novak Executive Vice President President AVID Center A+ Education Partnership COLORADO ARIZONA Rachel Christeson Dr. Terri Hardy NCHEMS President TNH Educational Consulting, Inc. Kerrie Dallman President Janice Palmer Colorado Education Association Vice President & Director of Policy Helios Education Foundation Diane Duffy Interim Executive Director ARKANSAS CO. Dept. of Higher Education Anthony Owen Lisa Escarcega Coordinator of Computer Science Executive Director Arkansas Department of Education CASE CALIFORNIA Joe Garcia William Cirone President County Superintendent of Schools Western Interstate Commission for Higher Santa Barbara County Education Office Education 700 Broadway, Suite 810 • Denver, CO 80203-3442 • 303.299.3600 • Fax: 303.296.8332 | www.ecs.org | @EdCommission COLORADO – cont. Kati Haycock Bryan Goodwin President Vice President Communications and Marketing Education Trust Mid-continent
    [Show full text]
  • How One State Legislature Grappled with Creating an Ethics Commission
    How One State Legislature Grappled with Creating an Ethics Commission Viki Harrison* Do you need a scandal to pass ethics reforms in a state? Or can you pass an effective ethics commission without elected officials creating some momentum by breaking the law? This Article reviews how one state, New Mexico, grappled with creating an ethics com- mission for decades. Enacting ethics commissions that hold state legislators and other elected officials accountable in a public way is a difficult but critical task for advocates across the country. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 422 I. THE STATE’S ETHICAL CHALLENGES . 422 A. The Impact of Corruption in New Mexico . 424 B. New Mexico’s Unpaid Citizen Legislature . 425 C. Ethics and Campaign Finance Task Force Momentum. 427 1. 2007 Gift Act ...................................... 429 2. 2009 Campaign Contribution Limits . 429 3. Update the Campaign Reporting Act (numerous attempts to update have not passed) . 430 4. Publicly Financed Elections (introduced but not passed) . 432 D. Previous Efforts to Create Ethics Policies and Commissions . 432 1. Weaker Policies Proposed ............................. 433 2. Best Principles for Provisions That Should Not Be Included ........................................... 435 II. 2017 ETHICS PASSES AND GOES TO THE VOTERS IN 2018 . 435 A. How 2017 Became the Year for the Winning Campaign . 437 B. Opposition and Doubt from Legislature . 440 C. Drivers of Legislative Support for Ethics Reform . 441 III. EXPECTATIONS AND REALITIES OF LEGISLATIVE REFORM . 444 A. Is There an Exemplary National Program? . 445 B. Best Elements of an Ethics Commission . 446 1. Best Principles for Specific Powers and Duties of the Ethics Commission .................................. 446 * Director of State Operations at Common Cause; formerly Common Cause New Mexico (CCNM) Executive Director.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Year in Review
    2009 Year in Review People of sensibility almost always felt powerful reactions to the atmosphere of the Southwest. ~ Paul Horgan, Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian The Council of State Governments-WEST About CSG-WEST The Council of State Governments-WEST (CSG-WEST) provides a nonpartisan platform for regional cooperation among the legislatures of the West, creating opportunities for legislators and staff to share ideas and experiences, as well as institutional linkages with other elected political leaders throughout the region. Based in California where it was founded over 60 years ago as the western region of the Council of State Governments (CSG), the CSG-WEST legislative membership of 13 western states benefits from its associate memberships with the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia; the Pacific islands of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam; and from its collaborative partnerships with the border states of Mexico. CSG- Table of Contents WEST Programs and Projects Summary ..................2 Executive Committee .....................................3 Western Legislative Service Directors............7 Western Legislative Conference ....................8 2009 Year in Review in Year 2009 Western Legislative Academy ......................10 WESTRENDS ................................................14 U.S.-Mexico State Alliance Partnership........16 Border Legislative Conference .....................18 Legislative Council on River Governance .....20 Annual Meeting ...........................................21
    [Show full text]
  • State of New Mexico
    STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF SANTA FE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT No. D-101-CV-2011-02942 BRIAN F. EGOLF, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DIANNA J. DURAN, et al., Defendants. - Consolidated with - CAUSE NO. D-101-CV-2011-02944 CAUSE NO. D-101-CV-2011-02945 CAUSE NO. D-101-CV-2011-03016 CAUSE NO. D-101-CV-2011-03099 CAUSE NO. D-101-CV-2011-03107 CAUSE NO. D-202-CV-2011-09600 CAUSE NO. D-506-CV-2011-00913 THE EXECUTIVE DEFENDANTS’ STATE SENATE PRE-TRIAL BRIEF After weeks of testimony in the trials for redistricting the Congressional and House of Representatives districts, this Court is, by now, undoubtedly familiar with the legal standards employed by courts to create a reapportionment plan for a state’s representative districts. The New Mexico Senate districts are treated no differently. In its limited, equitable role, this Court must first ensure that the Equal Protection Clause is honored to its fullest extent by adopting Senate districts that are as equal in population as is practicable. This is the sole Constitutional criterion about which there is no doubt. Then, this Court must ensure that minority voting rights are protected. Finally, but only after these first two constitutional and statutory requirements are met, may the Court base selection of a plan on the secondary neutral criteria such as compactness, core retention, incumbent protection, communities of interest preservation, and political fairness. In short, how this Court determines New Mexico’s Senate boundaries for the next decade should be no different than how it selected the boundaries for the Congressional and state House districts.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules Committees
    Committee Procedures 4-61 Rules Committees The parliamentary rules and procedures that govern each assembly lie at the heart of the legislative process. Legislative rules provide order, allow for the reasonable man- agement of deliberations and debate, and ensure internal accountability. Stable rules protect the rights of both majority and minority members. Because parliamentary procedures are vital to the legislative process, it is common for chambers to create a committee whose jurisdiction covers legislative rules. More than 70 percent of legislative assemblies reported having rules committees. Only the following chambers responded that they did not. Colorado House Nevada Senate and Assembly Connecticut Senate and House New Mexico House Louisiana Senate and House Texas Senate Michigan House Make-up of a rules committee. Committee chairs generally are appointed by a des- ignated authority such as the presiding officer of the senate or house, another cham- ber leader or a committee on committees. In 36 legislative chambers, rules commit- tees are no exception to this practice, and an appointed legislator serves as the head of the committee. In another third of the chambers, however, a legislative leader is designated to fill this position. Table 97-4.24 illustrates who acts as the rules commit- tee chair. There can be no committee without members. Table 97-4.25 highlights who selects lawmakers to serve on rules committees. In about half the legislative assemblies, the presiding officer appoints the rules committee members. In 13 chambers, another legislative leader makes the selections. Seniority systems are used by the senates in Arkansas, Idaho and Minnesota. Sometimes, all or part of the rules committee mem- bership is set by statute or chamber rule; this is true in six legislative bodies.
    [Show full text]