Lege 101 – Committees, in theory and in practice

Posted by Craig McDermott

In almost any legislative body in the country, from the U.S. Congress down to the elected council of the smallest town, most of the 'grunt' work is done in committees made up of members of the body.  Ideally, the members of the committees analyze pieces of legislation, hear expert and public testimony, and make recommendations on that legislation to the legislative body at large.

That's the theory, anyway. 🙂

Arizona's state lege has 24 standing committees plus the two chambers' Rules Committees, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and a varying number of ad hoc and interim committees.  This post will cover only the standing committees, though JLBC is possibly the most influential during lean budget times – it's the 'numbers' committee that provides the info that legislative budgeteers work from.

After a bill is introduced by a legislator, it is "first read" and assigned to the committee that covers the area of the bill's relevance (tax policy bills go to Ways and Means, road bills go to Transportation, criminal laws go to Judiciary, etc.).  A bill may be assigned to two standing committees if it is broad enough.

That's the theory, anyway.  🙂

The committees then hold hearings where the members listen, deliberate, and decide based solely on the merits of the proposal before them.

That's the theory, anyway. :)

The reality in Arizona is that most important bills (like the budget) are worked out behind closed doors by Republican leadership and handed to committees to rubber stamp.  And while there is some discussion, mostly of the "posturing" variety, the vast majority of the time, the committee approves, on a party line vote, whatever the leadership puts before them.

As for "less important" bills, the reality is that most members have decided how they are going to vote on a measure before they enter the hearing room and listen to testimony.  On the rare occasions that a member isn't familiar with a given bill, they usually follow the lead of another committee member they trust and respect (OK, the Ds tend to look to the ranking D member for guidance and the Rs follow the lead of the committee chair).  Rarer still (though not unheard-of) are the occasions where the members make a decison based only on the testimony and facts at hand.

Often, the "rubber stamp" practical reality of committees is more important than the "deliberation" theoretical ideal of committees.  The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House have unfettered discretion when it comes to assigning bills to committee.  This was evident in abundance during the recently concluded 6th Special Session of the 49th Arizona Legislature where Bob Burns, the President of the Senate, assigned all of the budget-related bills not to the Appropriations Committee, which normally hears all budget matters, but instead to the Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Public Debt Committee.

Huh?!?

It was an example of legislative management in action – Senate Approps is chaired by anti-government zealot Russell Pearce (who would just *love* to shut down Arizona's state government) while NRIPD is chaired by the more mundanely conservative John Nelson.

Nelson was more pliable, at least as far as the latest budget bills were concerned, so the bills were assigned to his committee.

Aside from the "rubber stamp" function, the committee system is used to kill bills instead of propelling them forward in the process.

When the Speaker/Senate President sees a bill that he doesn't like (such as almost any bill with a Democrat's name attached to it), he can assign it to a committee chaired by someone who won't take up the bill for consideration, effectively killing the bill without appearing to do so himself.

In addition to that, all bills go through the Rules Committee in the respective chambers.  Those committees are supposed to evaluate the constitutionality/legality of each bill and nothing more, but both serve as de facto gatekeepers for the leadership, delaying or even preventing floor consideration of any bills that the leadership doesn't want the entire membership to vote on.

So all bills are assigned two or three committees, including Rules.  If a bill is assigned to four committees, the leadership is making sure that a particular bill doesn't see the light of day.

And if a bill is assigned to five committees, as was done to Rep. Ed Ableser's SCM2010 (a postcard to Congress asking that they apologize for US involvement in the 1973 military coup in Chile)?

That the Speaker killing a particular bill, letting everybody know that he is killing it, and sending a direct message to the member proposing the bill (OK, a two-word message, the second word being "you").

No one should take all of this rather cynical analysis as an argument in favor of ignoring committee hearings.

As I said earlier, occasionally committee members *do* actually take public testimony into consideration when casting their votes, but there is another, stronger, reason for interested citizens and advocates to trek to the Capitol to testify before the lege's standing committees.

Media coverage.

The members of the committees may not always pay attention to the people appearing before them (unless those folks are from the Center For Arizona Policy or the Goldwater Institute, both of whom are always warmly received by the Rs in the lege), but committee hearings are usually attended by one or more members of the MSM who are assigned to Capitol duty.

A visit to the Capitol is frequently the best way to gain widespread notice courtesy a quote or two in the newspapers.

And even *this* legislature notices when public pressure is brought to bear on an issue.