The Special Session and the 2-fer motion that people didn’t see coming

Pat Powers

Here’s a story coming out of the special session that I hadn’t heard.  Apparently, there were a number of senators who were not very happy at the double-barreled motion coming at the start of the recent special session.

What set things into consternation? It was over the vote for President Pro Tempore:

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

    Sen. Curd moved that the Senate do now proceed with the organization of the Senate.    Which motion prevailed.    Sen. Curd moved that Sen. Brock L. Greenfield be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Ninety-second Legislative Session and the Ninety-third Legislative Session.

The question being on Sen. Curd’s motion that Sen. Greenfield be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Ninety-second Legislative Session and the Ninety-third Legislative Session.

And the roll being called:    Yeas 27, Nays 6, Excused 2, Absent 0

Yeas:
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Frerichs; Greenfield (Brock); Haverly; Jensen (Phil); Kennedy; Killer; Klumb; Kolbeck; Langer; Maher; Monroe; Nelson; Nesiba; Novstrup; Russell; Stalzer; Sutton; Tapio; Tidemann; White; Wiik; Youngberg

Nays:
Heinert; Otten (Ernie); Partridge; Rusch; Soholt; Solano

Excused:
Netherton; Peters

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried.

Read that here.

Why was this mundane vote a bit contentious? Look at the language:

The question being on Sen. Curd’s motion that Sen. Greenfield be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Ninety-second Legislative Session and the Ninety-third Legislative Session.

This motion didn’t simply elect the President Pro Tempore for the Special Session. It purported to elect him for both the special session and the session starting in January, and there were those who didn’t care for it, and it became a point of contention.

If we look at the State House, a similar motion met with no dissent in that chamber:

Rep. Qualm moved that the following officers of the regular Ninety-second Legislative Session: Speaker of the House G. Mark Mickelson and Speaker Pro tempore Don Haggar, who are now present be declared elected in their respective offices for the Special Session and for the regular Ninety-third Legislative Session.

The question being on Rep. Qualm’s motion that the Speaker of the House and the Speaker Pro tempore officers of the regular Ninety-second Legislative Session be declared elected in their respective offices for the Special Session and for the regular Ninety-third Legislative Session.

And the roll being called:

Yeas 66, Nays 0, Excused 4, Absent 0

Yeas:
Ahlers; Anderson; Bartels; Bartling; Beal; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Carson; Chase; Clark; Conzet; Dennert; Duvall; Frye-Mueller; Glanzer; Goodwin; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar; Haugaard; Hawley; Heinemann; Holmes; Howard; Hunhoff; Jamison; Jensen (Kevin); Johns; Johnson; Kaiser; Karr; Kettwig; Latterell; Lesmeister; Livermont; Lust; Marty; May; McCleerey; McPherson; Mills; Otten (Herman); Peterson (Kent); Peterson (Sue); Pischke; Qualm; Rasmussen; Reed; Rhoden; Ring; Rounds; Rozum; Schoenfish; Smith; Soli; Steinhauer; Stevens; Tulson; Turbiville; Wiese; Willadsen; Wismer; York; Zikmund; Speaker Mickelson

Excused:
DiSanto; Lake; Schaefer; Tieszen

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the Secretary of State declared the Speaker and Speaker Pro tempore duly elected.

Read that here.

From what I’m told, the Director of the Legislative Research Council was supposedly referring to it as a procedural throwback to the years when they would have session every other year. But if we look at how they handled in during the previous special session, they looked at it moving backwards to the previous session, as opposed to looking forward:

House:

Rep. Lust moved that the following officers of the regular Eighty-sixth Legislative Session: Speaker of the House, Val Rausch; Speaker Pro tempore, Brian Gosch; and Chief Clerk of the House, Karen Gerdes; who are now present be declared elected in their respective offices for the Special Session.

Read that here.

Senate:

Sen. Olson moved that Sen. Gray be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Eighty-sixth Legislative Session.

Read that here.

Now, I’ve heard rumors about which this was done, but I’ve also heard that this kerfuffle might have also affected the type of compromise they were bale to hammer out, at least in the Senate.

I’ve heard they had to look forward because they had adjourned sine die from the previous session, but, if we use that line of logic, then didn’t they adjourn the same way from the special session?

The legislative rules looked back to those passed in the prior session for their structure…

Your Joint-Select Committee appointed on joint rules respectfully reports that it has had under consideration the joint rules and recommends that the joint rules of the Ninety-second Legislative Session be adopted with the following exceptions:

and as it applies to elections (per the constitution)..

Art. III, Sec. 9, Par. 3. Rules of proceedings–Officers and employees. EACH HOUSE SHALL DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, SHALL CHOOSE ITS OWN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FIX THE PAY THEREOF, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CONSTITUTION.

And in Senate Rules…

CHAPTER 3. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES S3-1. Elective officers. The officers of the Senate are a president pro tempore of the Senate, a secretary of the Senate and such other officers necessary to conduct the business of the Senate, who shall be formally elected by a majority vote of the members-elect of the Senate. Employees necessary to conduct the business of the Senate shall be appointed by the president pro tempore and their appointment shall be announced at the opening of the session.

The question might be contemplated as to whether the rules of the Ninety-second Legislative Session (or Ninety-second and a half) can bind the participants of the Ninety-eighth, and can elections held in the Special Session bind the following session, since they reach a point of adjournment where they close the session.

As noted, ultimately per Article III of the State Constitution, “EACH HOUSE SHALL DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS,” add “SHALL CHOOSE ITS OWN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES..”

If the question is “whether they can elect officers for the next session 6 months early”… the best answer might be “if they feel like it.”

We’ll have to see if they still feel the same in January.

3 thoughts on “The Special Session and the 2-fer motion that people didn’t see coming”

  1. Soholt and Solano were upset the entire session that they were ousted from leadership. Partridge fell in with them for some reason. The vote just exposed their unhappiness with Greenfield’s conservative leadership.

  2. I am highly skeptical that it is legally effective to elect officers for a session that will happen in the future. Each session is its own entity. It is perfectly fine to adopt the rules of a past session in the current session because the current session is still deciding to do that. But the adoption of rules or the election of officers does not carry over after the Legislature has adjourned sine die. One Legislature cannot bind the next one. The Secretary of State will still preside over the opening of the House at the next session and conduct the initial organization of the House, which includes the swearing in of the members and the officers.

    The reason for electing officers at the beginning of each session becomes even more obvious when member turn over in the interim, such has Don Haggar’s recent resignation. So now his replacement will get no say in the House leadership? That doesn’t seem right.

  3. Both Houses can change or amend the rules any time they are in session. They just need the votes to do so.

Comments are closed.