Lame Ducks Make bad Policy

Consider the late vote in the Senate on capital punishment.

Not that such should be an overly partisan issue, but without the votes of Senators Martin (gone), McCullough (gone), and Palaia (gone), the measure could not pass. Also necessary for the measure were the votes of Senators Conigilio (gone), Bryant (gone), Karcher (gone), and Kenny (gone).

(Assume that the measure had fallen one vote shy. The votes of Asselta, Bark, Ciesla, Connors, Inveso, Littell, and McNamara – all gone – stood in the way.)

Of these, McCullough, Karcher, and Asselta just got the boot from the voters of their districts. Should these soon-to-be-former representatives be casting votes which purport to represent the interest of the constituents who just handed them a pink slip? In each case, a new representative, presumably more in tune with the districts’ wishes, has been elected. Why are the has-beens making important policy decisions?

Lame duck sessions are justifiably infamous for the passing of execrable legislation. This rings especially true when the Legislature changes parties, when all sorts of bills a Party is too cowardly to run on see the light of day. Policymaking by "representatives" fired by the voters constitutes a grave disservice to democracy. Obviously, the rejects completely lack the right to claim to represent the wishes of their constituents. Too, several of these folks chose to leave secure in the knowledge that the voters would show them the door if they sought reelection. They should not cast important votes when, clearly, they no longer possess the authority from the electorate.

In our system, voluntary lame-duckery – or that brought along by term limits – tends to free some lilly-livered representatives who, hitherto, lacked the appropriate courage, to "vote their consciences". (Would that every Legislator always voted his conscience, willing to cast votes which might cost him his reelection but which, in his considered judgment, represents good policy.) If every representative acted with courage, this would present no issue. And, alas, there’s almost no way around it, as one cannot insist that a representative seek reelection, never retire, or not lose a primary.

But when the voters of a district have already spoken, and replacements stand ready to assume the mantel of responsibility of government, permitting holdovers – especially defeated holdovers – to cast important votes is unwise and improper. The people, having replaced the old guard, are entitled to have their new representatives speak.

Lame duck session should be abolished. If we can do without the Legislature from June through November of every election year, the State can make it through until January when the new folks take over.