
WA House Dems change 132-year-old rule requiring supermajority to end debates
(The Center Square) – For 132 years, a rule has existed in the Washington State Legislature's House of Representatives requiring a supermajority to suspend debate on a bill that has come to the floor. Last week, House legislators voted 54-33 to alter that rule, so that now only a majority is required to end debate. Currently, the House is composed of 59 Democrats and 39 Republicans.
“We're setting ourselves up on a dangerous path,” Rep. Chris Corry, R-Yakima, told legislators during House floor debate on Friday regarding a resolution adopting House rules for the session. Speaking in favor of an amendment to restore the supermajority requirement to end debate, he said “this underlying House rules is going to take away our ability or take away the ability of the minority party to have a robust discussion ... and that's very concerning.”
“We've had those good debates in the past and we've discussed the repercussions of potentially making this change,” he added. “The fear is what we're adopting in here is a rule that can be used to silence the minority party.”
Speaking against the amendment and in favor of a simple majority vote to suspend debate was Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle, who said the change was necessary to avoid instances where debate lingers on in an effort to delay the legislative process and potentially stymie legislation favored by the majority party.
“It is very important that we have robust debates on this floor,” he said. “What I don't think is appropriate is for the prerogative to speak on a question, whether that's an amendment or on final passage, to be used as a filibuster to delay final passage vote or an amendment vote such that the limited time that we have constitutionally allocated to us means that we can't get to a proposal that has majority support on the floor of the House.”
“I fundamentally think that our democracy means that all sides have their voices heard and that then we move to a vote,” he said. “I don't think that we should have endless speeches, particularly speeches that are restating points that are already made only to serve the goal of slowing something down to make it past a deadline after which a proposal can no longer be considered.”
However, Rep. Travis Couture, R-Allyn, argued that “every single member, including me and you on this House floor, has a right to debate and speak on this House floor. As long it is germane to the issue at hand, to the bill at hand. Just because myself if I give a speech and it is similar in nature to that of another member on this floor, [it] does not mean that I should have my rights and my abilities as a member of the House floor to limit my debate on any subject.”
Rep. Drew Stokesbary, R-Auburn, noted that there are already other restrictions around debate to prevent frivolous delays.
“Speeches must be germane and confined to the question to confined to the topic of the question at hand," he said. "Those are the rules. Unlike other chambers, members can't hold the floor for hours on end. We can speak for up to three minutes before cut off. Unlike other chambers members can't read the phone book. We can't read Charles Dickens.”
"Today is a sad day for the institution, a chilling day for the 3 million Washingtonians whose elected voices can now be silenced at any time,” he added.