As we have seen for the last month or so, there is little good will between Republicans and Democrats and lots of partisan bad blood. Debates occasionally have taken on a nastier edge than usual. Some lawmakers have shouted so angrily at their political rivals during debates you half-expect smoke to come fuming from their nostrils.
The House finally passed a state health and human services budget on Saturday, but not before a week-and-a-half spectacle of bitter debates and general ill will dished out to each side. It’s hard to assess how this sideshow affected the House’s reputation with voters, but it probably didn’t drive up the body’s, or either side’s, job approval marks.
As an example of the Senate’s collegiality, one party had takeout dinners delivered to the other party during the long days right before the transmittal deadline last month. The next night, the other side reciprocated.
If that happened in the House, nobody would touch the food. They’d be afraid the other party had sprinkled arsenic on it.
So why is the House such a disagreeable place these days?
Certainly term limits have deprived the House of the experienced members and leaders it needs. The Senate, on the other hand, benefits from having many former representatives moving there when term limits prevent them from serving any longer in the House. More than ever, the House has become almost a farm team for the Senate. Far fewer senators want to drop down to the House when their Senate time is up. Who can blame them?
Like them or not, though, term limits appear here to stay. They remain popular with the voters who adopted them, yet deprive the Legislature of the very kind of experience we value in lawyers, doctors, carpenters, mechanics, engineers and other occupations.
Anyone watching the House recently would probably agree a little more seasoning couldn’t hurt. Perhaps term limits someday could be extended to 12 years instead of the current eight.
House Republicans remain bitter about the redistricting done by a Democratic-controlled commission after the 2000 census. Republicans believe the plan is gerrymandered to favor Democrats, just as Democrats believe the 1990 plan was stacked against them. Who knows? Both may be right in some instances.
Much of the Democrats’ ill will toward House Republicans stems from the GOP’s decision to split the traditional single state budget bill, House Bill 2, into eight separate bills. Republicans made the decision unilaterally in February without involving Democrats.
So far, the results of this change haven’t exactly been spectacular, given the impasse over the human services budget, but it’s too early yet to assess its full impact.
There may be good reasons for the Legislature to switch to multiple appropriations bills, or for that matter, good reasons to use a single unified measure. But such a change should not be undertaken midway through a legislative session by one side.
Why not conduct a bipartisan study first, between legislative sessions, to look at the advantages and disadvantages of both methods and find out what works best in other states?
Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer seems to have virtually no relationship with House Republican leaders, and vice versa. That’s too bad. A better working relationship between them might have smoothed things out.
Election results would indicate Montana is split practically down the middle politically, and the Legislature reflects that. House Republicans outnumber Democrats 50-49, with one Constitution Party member. Democrats have a 26-24 edge in the Senate, but it would have been tied, at 25-25, if Sen. Sam Kitzenberg of Glasgow hadn’t switched parties to become a Democrat after the election.
All 100 representatives were elected in November to two-year terms. Some are still smarting from the vicious direct-mail attack pieces that one party or the other sent out last fall. Maybe both parties ought to tone down their campaign rhetoric.
During the legislative session, the state Republican Party began sending mail pieces attacking some Democratic representatives who voted against a gun bill. This tactic is common in some states, but it’s too bad it started here.
Not all House members loathe each other. There are some friendships across the aisle. Let’s hope some of the more reasonable members of each party can work together to improve the atmosphere and encourage more respect toward each side.
With skylights overhead and Charlie Russell’s masterpiece painting on the wall in front of them, Montana’s representatives work in too beautiful a setting to treat each with hostility and contempt. Let’s hope representatives can start treating each other as Montanans expect to treat each other, just as they do in the Senate.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)