There has been talk in recent years of trying to limit the length of vote explanations in the Vermont House. Let me explain. On a roll call vote, members are allowed to ask for an opportunity after voting is completed to state for the record why they voted yes or no. This is after they had the opportunity to make speeches on the floor. These explanations must be written and are turned into the House staff for publication in the House Journal the following day.
Vote explanations have become increasingly popular. They also have been getting longer and longer.
The solution: The committee on House rules offered a resolution today that would set some official limits. It said, "It is generally recognized that vote explanations
should be rare and brief. Only those explanations of 50 words or less will be printed in the House Journal."
In other words, House members could still go on and on with their vote explanation, but only 50 words would be reprinted in the Journal.
Rep. Judy Livingston, R-Manchester, who serves on the rules committee, explained to House members that lots of lengthy, hand-written explanations put a burden on the House staff trying to turn around the Journal overnight. She reminded members that their
fulll remarks would be heard on the radio,
wouldl be on file and would, of course, be heard on the House floor.
Rep. Tom Koch, R-Barre, objected to the limit, saying it violated members "free speech" rights.
It was clear that House members were going to struggle with this vote. Many might favor a way to restrict the verbose vote explanations, but who among them wanted to be on the record voting against free speech, especially their own. And they were going to be on the record. Koch had asked for a roll call.
Rep. Bill
Lippert, D-
Hinesburg, came to the rescue. He asked for a short recess, and after a group conference at the Speaker's podium, the resolution was tabled until Friday. My guess is some rewriting will take place between now and then to suggest limits, but eliminate the mandate.
-- Nancy
Remsen
