The Voter I.D. Hearing: Dunnam makes a point
You can love Dunnam or you can hate him, and I’ve done both, at times, but I’ll say this about him: He doesn’t miss much. He had some Voter I.D. proposals to present to the Elections committee today, and when the hearing started, Todd Smith spoke generally to the audience about the procedure and other matters. One of the things Smith said was that Senate Bill 362 would be the vehicle for any changes. Dunnam immediately saw the significance of Smith’s casual remark:
“If 362 would be used as the vehicle, then any changes have to be germane to Senate Bill 362. If you limit it to the vehicle, then you are prohibiting any changes or alterations to 362 that are not germane to 362. Therefore, the House is going to be constrained by the Senate’s approach, and we will not be able to go beyond the changes that the Senate made. If the decision has already been made that 362 will be the vehicle, then my changes may not be germane, and I want to know if that decision has already been made.” And, he might have added, who made it.
The Democrats already feel that they have been betrayed on Voter I.D. by the makeup of the committee Straus appointed. This exchange didn’t help.
Tagged: jim dunnam, sb 362, voter ID.
Anonymous says:
Why doesn’t Chairman Smith just tell Dunnam he isn’t recognized to ask questions, like Chairman Dunnam does to other members in his committee?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Not sure I really understand Dunnam’s question. A committee is constrained by house rules to considering actual pieces of legislation that have been filed, and amendments to that legislation which are germane. Those are the rules. Nothing new there.
(Plus, what would dunnam want to add that wouldn’t be germane to the senate bill?)
Plus, chairmen are empowered by the house rules to decide which bills they want their committee to hear and vote on. Nothing new there either.
Again, what is so “deep” about dunnam’s question?
Reply »
Bill Broyles says:
Anonymous@9:24PM (or should I call you by your real name, Phil King): If you’ve spent any time in Dunnam’s committee, you would realize that all members to get to speak–they just don’t get to speak when the committee is in the process of voting on something. So give it a rest.
Anonymous@9:39PM: If you understood the House and its rules, you wouldn’t have made your asinine statements. Despite popular misconceptions, the rules matter and in this instance, the Senate’s approach could cut off many of the proposals floated by House members from both sides of the aisle. Most Chairmen and Members are absolutely unaware of the requirements of the rules, including germaneness.
Reply »
Dunnam's Ranch Hand/Paralegal says:
Dunnam always makes a point…with the gravitas of an undergraduate!
Everyone knows that the house can make it’s own changes and we can go to conference to work out the details.
A 2-year waiting period is going to happen. At least be glad the R’s are trying good policy along with good politics this time around. Cause no matter who you are voter id is good politics…unless you’re a blogger.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Ask the public if they support or oppose making voting both more secure – and easier – and all but the few wingnuts would be in favor.
It’s a choice between making voting more secure and harder – or more secure and easier.
That’s how the debate should be framed.
Look, participation in democracy comes with birth. You can’t buy or work your way into the system.
Anyone who is eligible to vote should be entitled to participate. But bring some acceptable form of ID.
It’s a no-brainer.
Registration is not necessary in the computer age.
If you are eligible….come and vote. Bring ID.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 10:25 am
“We can go to conference and work out the details.”
You’re dreaming. Perry and Dewhurst and the Senate will come down on the speaker and the House conferees like a ton of bricks. This is the opportunity for the conservatives to undermine Straus.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
Dunnam is so deep that if you have to ask then you don’t understand the depth of his “deepness”.
Reply »