Aaron Sanderford
LINCOLN — The future of the filibuster, used to stall or kill bills, will be discussed at a public hearing scheduled for Monday on a variety of proposed legislative rules changes.
Several state senators, including Speaker John Arch and State Sen. Steve Erdman of Bayard, who chairs the Legislature’s Rules Committee, praised the proposals for offering a range of choices from minor tweaks to wholesale changes.
The core disagreement between competing proposals is finding the proper balance between majority rule and minority rights, an issue Arch highlighted during his session-opening speech last week.
In an interview Friday, Arch said “a lot of thought” was put into every senator’s proposed rules. He said he and Erdman shared some proposals with other senators a month early.
Arch said his goal is to keep the rules debate from stretching out during a short, 60-day session. Erdman, in a separate interview, said he doesn’t care if the rules debate goes long if things “get fixed.”
“I think the process has been great, very different than previous rules that have been introduced very quickly and then there’s been a reaction,” Arch said.
Fewer proposals, tighter focus
At the hearing, the public will weigh in on 34 proposals, which Erdman says was a vast improvement from the record 57 proposed changes lawmakers discussed last session.
Weigh in on proposals
Speaker John Arch said Sunday he does not expect the forecast snow to delay the hearing.
He said the hearing will be streamed and encouraged anybody who cannot attend to submit comments online about the proposed rules.
The hearing is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. in Room 1525 of the State Capitol.
The proposed changes can be found here. Public comments on those proposals will be accepted until noon Monday.
“These have had some substance to them…,” Erdman said. “I don’t envision all of them coming to the floor.”
Erdman said he sees several proposals addressing the same four or five areas needing improvement where deals might be possible that combine parts of competing approaches.
Many deal with how and when to stop debate, letting the majority vote. A few address longstanding conservative concerns about letting senators vote for leadership by secret ballot.
Some senators, including Erdman, prefer a public vote so partisans could see who chose which person for what job, which critics have said would lead to fewer crossover votes for either party.
Arch said he sees opportunities for compromise and process improvements. He and other institutionalists said they aim to ensure changes don’t cause unintended harm.
Nathan Leach of Nonpartisan Nebraska, which advocates to protect the Legislature’s nonpartisan traditions, said he appreciated the seriousness Arch applied to his proposals.
“I am cautiously optimistic that Nebraskans will end up with positive, nonpartisan improvements,” Leach said.
Changes expected after 2023
Lawmakers in the officially nonpartisan body told the Nebraska Examiner they knew some changes were coming after a 2023 session marked by controversial bills and filibusters.
Some privately criticized State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, who filibustered many bills last year in an unsuccessful effort to stop a stricter abortion ban and restrictions on trans health care for minors.
Others criticized State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha for pressing forward with another controversial bill this session that would restrict which sports teams trans students can join and what bathrooms they can use.
Cavanaugh and others who defended the Legislature’s current rules said they hope those testifying on the rules defend lawmakers’ ability to speak freely.
“The most important thing to keep in mind when we are having a rules debate is the integrity of speech … and free speech doesn’t have to be speech that we agree with,” she said.
Cavanaugh said people should closely watch any proposals “restricting the voice of the people by restricting debate.”
Kauth said she hears from people who want senators to get along better and be less contentious. But she said lawmakers are elected to engage in tough conversations about difficult topics.
Her goal with the proposed rules is to have those difficult debates run more predictably and smoothly, not to silence disagreements.
“Last session it was very much an — instead of the intent of the rules, it was about the loopholes in the rules,” Kauth said. “They’re trying to close those.”
Broader support for some ideas
Many of Arch’s proposals have secured support, including one adding the ability to seek cloture votes on motions instead of just when bills are being debated.
One senator said Arch’s proposals seem to preserve the ability of lawmakers to debate. Another said he appreciated proposals codifying temporary changes made last year that limited off-topic motions.
Erdman’s ideas also have found support, especially among conservatives, who hold a majority and who express frustrations with seeing their bills killed for want of a single vote or two.
Erdman’s cloture proposal has received both passionate support and pushback. He has proposed a sliding scale for how many votes would be needed based on how many senators show up and vote.
As few as 25 votes would be needed for cloture on days when 37 senators attend or vote yes or no. Erdman’s proposal would also lower the threshold for voting “present, not voting.”
One senator said he worried senators could game the system if the votes needed for cloture went down depending on how many senators were attending that day. The schedule could be manipulated, he said.
Another lawmaker said he would like to see senators pay a price for trying to avoid difficult votes and said Erdman’s proposal would increase the incentive to attend more debates and votes.
Executive sessions
Erdman said he expects a fight on his proposal to lock reporters out of executive sessions. Currently, reporters can attend these closed sessions and report on what is said. He said either everyone should be allowed in or no one. Similar proposals have fallen short in recent years.
Several lawmakers said they were still digesting rules proposals from State Sens. Justin Wayne of Omaha, John Cavanaugh of Omaha and Ben Hansen of Blair.
One senator said he liked Wayne’s proposal that final reading votes be yes or no votes, eliminating the option to vote present but not voting and requiring all members who are present to vote.
Another said she liked Hansen’s proposal limiting senators to introducing 14 bills a session and letting them prioritize two bills instead of one if they introduce only five.
Avoiding marathon session
State Sen. Steve Erdman of Bayard says he won’t let this year’s hearing on potential changes to the Legislature’s rules drag on as long as last year’s marathon session.
Erdman is grouping each senator’s proposed rule changes together to help speed things along. People will be limited to testifying once per package of rules instead of being allowed to talk once per proposed rule.
He said testifiers who have heard someone make a point they share should not repeat it, or they will risk being cut off. He doesn’t want a chorus of “me toos.”
“We’re not doing that again,” Erdman said. “I mean it.”