Georgia Legislative Watch

Since it was brought up by Democrats today, here is a Yale Law Journal article on Georgia’s Hawks, or as they refer to it Rule 11.8:

Rule 11.8 has the potential to destroy one of the most democratic aspects of the committee system, the system of bargaining that accompanies committee meetings and votes. On its face, the rule can be used either to push bills out of committee or to obstruct them. The Speaker can manipulate the rule for either end. But even if it is rarely used, the sheer existence of the rule gives the Speaker an extraordinary and unjustified amount of legislative power.

On the one hand, it appears that the Rule allows the majority party to run roughshod over the minority. Because the Speaker can decide the fate of a bill in committee without ever bargaining with a single member of the minority party, Hawks dramatically reduce the legislative power of minority members.

But Rule 11.8 does more than merely cement the power of the majority—it centralizes power in the hands of one legislator while depriving other members of the power and value of their committee votes. The rule creates a major incentive to bargain with, and only with, the Speaker of the House. Since Hawks serve at the pleasure of the Speaker, he can dispatch them to any committee to alter the vote. His decision to send in a Hawk, especially where there is a close vote, has the effect of undoing any bargains that were predicated upon the outcome of a committee vote. Because legislators are aware that committee votes will eventually reflect the policy preferences of the Speaker, there may be little incentive to bargain with committee members at all.

Even if Rule 11.8 is always used to further the goals of the majority, it still does untold damage to the bargaining process because it promotes the shirking of legislative duties by members of the majority party. Members may be less inclined to perform their roles as committee members (attending meetings and researching the relevant topics, for example) because they know that Hawks can be sent in to ensure their party’s dominance. By the same token, minority members may shirk their committee duties if they feel that they are unlikely to influence committee outcomes. Rules that breed apathy among legislators can hardly be expected to promote bargaining or vigorous representation.

With regard to the last paragraph that I cited, Majority Leader Jerry Keen cited that 93% of Hawks attendance in committees was to ensure a quorum. So that point may have some validity.

It would seem that the minority party has a legitimate argument, but the majority’s citing of past rules and abuses of Democrats are somewhat valid as well. However, it is somewhat of “victor’s justice” for the party in power. The minority party always suffers.