Legislators from both side of the aisle (Democratic Rep. Spence Hawley, Republican Sen. Larry Rhoden...) have complained that lawmakers are gumming up the Capitol works with too many resolutions. Is that so?
In the 2014 session, the House has considered 32 concurrent resolutions, 15 of which have so far passed both chambers. The Senate has launched 7 concurrent resolutions, 5 of which have passed both chambers.
These two charts, based on the Legislative Research Council's 2013 Statistical Comparison, put the House and Senate's resolve in historical perspective:
The sedate Senate's CR production (bottom) is historically low, below the 1963–2013 average of 16 SCRs proposed. Our boisterous House's CR production (top) has tripled over last year and exceeds the prior average of 22 per session, but the total is not historically unusual. House members authored similar numbers of resolutions at the beginning of the Kneip administration (1971–1973) and at the end of Janklow's fourth term (2001–2002). They authored more resolutions during most of Janklow's first and second terms and the first two years of Mickelson's first term (1980–1988).
The big difference comes in passage rates for House concurrent resolutions. Usually the passage rate is 80% for HCRs, 77% for SCRs. We still have five HCRs pending, but so far, only 47% of the HCRs have passed. The only other years in which the HCR success rate was under 50% are 1970 and 2001. If those five penders all pass, they will bring the 2014 HCR passage rate to 63%.
Rep. Stace Nelson is the lead author of eleven of those House concurrent resolutions, His success rate there: five up, five down, one pending.
The House and, much less so, the Senate have trended toward more commemorations. From 1989 to 2013, the average was 29 House commemorations and 21 Senate commemorations. This year, the House has issued 61, the Senate 35.
Anybody want to wrestle the time spent in Pierre honoring football and truck driving champs?
In my opinion a waste of time no matter who does it-Republicans or Democrats.
It's really bad when you use one to honor a national politcal figure. I can understand honoring a South Dakotan, no matter what party.
But a national figure with no South Dakota ties-a waste of time.
You'll notice that Commemorations only began in 1989, the same year Concurrent Resolutions dropped precipitously. I wasn't able to ascertain this for certain, but it seems like before 1989 all the things we now see as Commemorations were being introduced as CRs. So as I wrote, the House's number of CRs this year is higher than any in the "modern era" since Commemorations were introduced.
Also, Commemorations don't waste time, just paper. The chambers don't debate them or vote on them, they're just included in the Journals.
Ah! Sorry I left your solid details out of the linkage, David!
A person could argue these are a waste of time if they know nothing of how the legislature operates.
The truth is that the legislature conducts much of its debating/deliberating behind closed doors in caucus and cuts debates short on their respective floors. They very rarely ever put in a full day in session and actually do no debating over 1/4th the time because they leave session early the last day of every week.
The only reason why anyone is complaining is because the resolution was for Republican Ron Paul and because of the games played with it.
Nowhere have we seen any condemnation for the personal resolution honoring liberal Democrat Barack Hussein Obama, which was sponsored by some of the same Republicans who claimed you could not do one for Ron Paul: http://sodakliberty.com/2014/03/05/rep-nelsons-hijacked-resolution-killed-by-a-rule-reinterpretation-before-it-could-be-restored/
Yes. There was a change in the late 1980s, as a result of an explosion in the sorts of "pats on the back" resolutions that turned into commemorations. The idea was these sorts of non-issue things were taking up too much time.
This left Concurrent Resolutions for the more policy-oriented resolutions. In sessions during the 1990s, many of the CRs, particularly the ones dealing with more controversial or topical subjects, went through the committee process in order to obtain public comment. My understanding is sending CRs to committee is not done now.
What I noticed in the 1980s and 1990s was the number of CRs and Commemorations increased in election years. Mostly, they are used to stake out some political advantage, not for serious consideration. This may be why CRs no longer go through committees.
Big difference DD between honoring the new President of the United States and Ron Paul.
David I stand corrected, but still a waste of peper.
I will vote against these wasters of time and taxpayer money. KNOCK IT OFF!!!! Throw them all out!
Owen, you prove my point that this is about petty politics. You rail against this saying only South Dakotans should be honored, but when it is pointed out that one was for one of the most divisive people in American political history, who is not from South Dakota (people aren't really sure where to list he is from)? That's okay.
You are so obsessed over the fact it was a Republican, that you ignore the hypocrisy of those that stole the bill and killed it. Those same people who claimed they had to kill the resolution because they thought the rules prohibited it, co-sponsored Obama's and later voted for several this year that honored a couple cowboys for winning at their events nationally!
Grudznick you may want to understand the process before you make a fool of yourself in such a way: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/resolution These are the reasons why some of these resolutions are debated more fiercely than many bills, as they do have legal impact over substantive issues.
As our host points out, 5 of these resolutions have been passed. They are no longer Representative Nelsons but are now South Dakota's as the entire legislature passed them. Additionally, if I am not mistaken, I believe several more actually passed out of the House and were defeated in the senate. Once they are passed by a body, they become the will of that body and are no longer the legislator's idea or proposal.
Everyone of the issues brought in Rep Nelson's resolutions were top issues of concern on both sides of the political spectrum (abortion, 2nd Amendment, federal deficit, Obamacare, illegal immigration, EB5 China issues, etc.). Claiming that debating those issues, and resolving an official stance on them by our state legislature, is a waste of time, is ignorance of the historic significance of such actions by legislatures and Congress.
Again DD the resolution honored the President of the United States and the other was honored for his years of service as a Representative from Texas-not South Dakota.
Using that criteria then we should honor Hillary Clinton for being first lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.
"Everyone of the issues brought in Rep Nelson's resolutions were top issues of concern on both sides of the political spectrum (abortion, 2nd Amendment, federal deficit, Obamacare, illegal immigration, EB5 China issues, etc.)."
Abortion is listed because it's the right that has the problem with it. The resolution for Obamacare was to defund it, which alot of South Dakotans, including myself, have. i don't agree with that resolution and I don't believe it should be an offical South Dakota stance.
Let me correct myself. It was Tom Daschle. Even so this was a resolution that honored a South Dakotans. As far as I know Ron Paul has not connection to South Dakota. My previous point still stands.
So you don't have a problem with the numerous resolutions about Taiwan, but you have a problem with honoring a man that served in the Air Force during a time of war and as a US Congressman? The only difference between Ron Paul and Barack Obama? Ron Paul served in the military for 6 years and in Congress for 20+ years. Obama has nothing to compare with that at the point he was simply elected! Partisan politics at its worst.
Mr. Distgusted. You may want to consider that I understand more about the process than you or Mr. Nelson. I'm just sayin...