Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rep. Mike Yantachka, a Democrat of Charlotte who represents Charlotte and Hinesburg in the Vermont House of Representatives.
After reading the VTDigger article, “Inside the Golden Bubble; Speaker Breaks Tie Vote,” and reading the comments, I felt compelled to write a response. I am one of the so-called “blue dog Democrats” who voted to support the Stevens amendment, which resulted in the tie vote that is referred to in the article.
I’m not quite sure what the definition of “blue dog” is or whether it applies to a single vote or a voting pattern, so to set the record straight, I want to be clear that I am a member of the Working Vermonters Caucus, a strong supporter of Labor, and consider myself to be pretty liberal. That said, I want to give my perspective on what the vote meant, what Rep. Tony Klein said afterward, and, most importantly, how the committee process works.
Contrary to many of the remarks expressed in the comments, the Democratic majority does not work in lock-step dictated by the Democratic leadership.
Let’s start with the committee process. During each biennium around a thousand bills are introduced, most in the House and several hundred in the Senate. Less than 200 actually get voted on. It is impossible for every representative to know what is in every bill, so we rely on the various committees to decide which bills will get considered in depth. The committees, composed of Democrats, Republicans and Progressives, then become the experts for a specific bill, taking testimony from interested parties on all sides of the issue. Most bills that make it to the floor are significantly modified from their original form as a result of the testimony that was heard.
A controversial bill also gets significant discussion at the party caucuses, which are meetings of members of the same political party. Caucus members are polled to see if they are on board with the bill. If a significant number do not support it, the bill will probably not make it out of committee. This happened with the paid sick days bill, which had a significant number of Democrats that did not support it.
If a bill does make it out of committee, our leadership generally asks us, as members of the majority party, to support the committee decision. While this system works well earlier in the session, during the last days of the session when everything gets rushed, it can break down. In the case of S.213, the “Sodexo bill,” there was no time to poll members on the amendments being offered, and the resulting vote was significantly influenced by the debate on the floor. Since the committee vote was unanimous for the Moran amendment and against the Stevens amendment, the Democratic leadership presumed that the committee position would be supported without a problem. This turned out to be a miscalculation. The message was sent that the bill needed more work, and it was sent back to the committee and never brought back for a vote. So the legislative process worked.
Rep. Klein’s remarks have to be seen in the light of the committee process, which generally works well. As a committee chair and part of the leadership, his point was that the committee process broke down at a time when a significant labor issue was being considered. As a supporter of working Vermonters who can be subject to unfair labor practices, I agree that we have to support legislation that makes the workplace fair. But the legislation also has to be thoroughly vetted so that unforeseen consequences don’t occur.
Contrary to many of the remarks expressed in the comments, the Democratic majority does not work in lock-step dictated by the Democratic leadership. There is plenty of give and take, and leadership does listen to the opinions of its members. However, it shouldn’t be surprising that most Democratic legislators agree on basic philosophies of supporting the working class, sound environmental policy, universal access to health care, supportive social programs, excellence in education, and a growing economy based on a solid infrastructure.
