Keep calm and legislate on

A Freedom-Caucus-led push for a legislative special session fell a few votes short Sunday evening. Both the push itself, and its subsequent failure, are irrevocably tethered to the same twin phenomena — a troubling rise of acrimony and decline of civility in Wyoming politics.

A full third of the Legislature called for the vote to initiate legislative overtime, motivated primarily by a desire to overturn a spate of Gov. Mark Gordon vetoes. That motivation was surely enhanced by the insulting tone Gordon employed in dismissing some of the lawmakers’ work.

But having just endured perhaps the nastiest, most acrimonious Budget Session in memory, the majority of Wyoming’s House representatives declined to subject themselves and their constituents to more of the same — despite passage in the Senate.  

The nature of what a special session would look like in practice also proved a problem for those trying to tip the scale in favor of reconvening. 

The Wyoming Constitution lays out clear limits on the number of days the Legislature can meet  each biennium and instruction on what each session should prioritize. If the Legislature wants to exceed its 60-day-per-two-year session allotment, a majority of its members must agree upon a clear and pressing need for doing so. In the past special sessions have been called to tackle Supreme Court decisions on education and U.S. congressional actions on health care. 

This year’s arguments for convening a special session included the need to  assert the Legislature’s veto override power. This is an important function of the Legislature, serving as a constitutional check on the power of the executive branch. It reminds the governor that his veto power is not all-encompassing. The Legislature can check it. 

Here is where a clear majority of the Legislature would most naturally reside if it weren’t for what I believe was a major hindrance — the personal and very divisive nature of our current politics as witnessed day after day during the recent budget session.

It isn’t hard to imagine why many lawmakers weren’t eager to go back into session and face the same nasty behaviors. But this fear is not good for the citizens of our state. By letting the lowest common denominator of official conduct deter action, we weaken the checks that keep our three branches of government in balance. That balance is fundamental to our form of republic and good for everyone.

Now arguments against convening a special session included the complicated fact that the Legislature adjourned “sine die,” meaning the session in which the bills recently vetoed by the governor ended without a no new date set to reconvene. That closed the door on legally extending, or reconvening the 2024 budget session, even though lawmakers still had a few unused session days left over from the 2023 general session to play with. No, a special session would have to be its own animal, and have to start from scratch, working up bills from square one. They couldn’t simply take up the budget sessions bills at their end stage by addressing Gordon’s vetoes. 

Lawmakers understood that restarting the entire process over again meant working the bills, giving them three readings in both chambers, etc., and then waiting three days after the passage of any bills to override the governor’s potential second veto. Past special sessions only further served as cautionary tales.

As seen in previous special sessions, any bill could be brought by any legislator while the chambers are in session, a scenario many fear would open the door to a runaway session of sorts.   

Some in the “for” column, namely the Freedom Caucus, floated the idea late last week of a “gentleman’s agreement,” in a clear attempt to try and make nice. Their solution outlined a set of unofficial “rules” (certainly not legally binding) and asked lawmakers to sign their names to these rules to try and prevent things going off the rails. But this attempt to create goodwill failed spectacularly. Not surprisingly many didn’t go for this “gentleman’s agreement” given the level of acrimonious behavior rife this year. 

While both of these arguments for and against have strong points, neither of them are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of what some would like us to believe. The men and women we elect to represent us make these kinds of decisions all the time. They aren’t a demonstration of crisp moral clarity, they are simply decisions.  

Since Sunday, some have tried to capitalize on their loss by fomenting anger and casting the collective decision not to return to Cheyenne as a massive leadership deficiency. They have even held up the ludicrous idea that lawmakers secretly schemed to kill bills they voted in favor of. The evidence? The accused legislators voted against a special session! Of all the outlandish Venn diagrams out there, that one’s the most hilarious. None of these notions are true, regardless of the childlike hysteria accompanying them.  

In reality, your elected officials, both those who voted for and those who voted against, made a decision informed by a complex and nuanced set of factors. Simple as that. Lawmakers will have another chance next year to pass many more bills. Perhaps they’ll also be smarter about their time management, allowing themselves to stay in session long enough to override vetoes. 

I hope several vetoed bills will be back again next year, and pass again. But more about that another time.

Now let me turn finally to the governor’s vetoes. 

Let’s talk about Senate File 54 – Homeowner tax exemption, sponsored by  the Revenue Committee.  The House voted 61-1 to pass the bill and the Senate voted for it 29-2. That demonstrates the support of an overwhelming majority of lawmakers holding beliefs up and down the political spectrum. Every single Republican in the House voted for this bill and all but one Republican except in the Senate voted for it, along with a smattering of Democrats. Controversial bills never pass with numbers like these.  

And yet, the governor vetoed this property tax relief bill in spectacular fashion. His veto letter to the Legislature included a gratuitous barb: “Such a wealth distribution scheme would be a socialistic-type of wealth transfer, mostly from the energy sector, to Wyoming homeowners. The Bidenomic-type of ‘tax relief’ in this bill is what I would expect from Washington, D.C. liberals, not conservative Wyoming legislators.”

What was he thinking? 

The Wyoming Legislature is made up of all kinds of Republicans and Democrats, but I would be hard-pressed to name a single one of them as supporters of socialism or D.C. liberals. Why the governor would accuse them of such a thing is baffling, unproductive and not befitting a leader. The session was acrimonious, but we need cooler heads to prevail.

The snark seems unnecessary, yet the message was clear. The governor got away with his acerbic veto by the skin of his teeth. I doubt he will be that lucky next time.

On Dec. 20, 1787 Thomas Jefferson, in a missive to James Madison on the unfolding composition of the U.S. Constitution and his attitudes towards many of the provisions, wrote, “I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”

His correspondence with Madison has many such nuggets of wisdom, I recommend them all to you. But this one is by far my favorite and serves as a good reminder in times like these.  

A less-than-energetic government is not a bad thing.