|
One of the first parliamentary issues I raised during the Special Session had to do with the “second reader rule.”
The “second reader rule” is not a rule you will find in the House Rules, Masons Rules or anywhere else for that mater. The “second reader rule” is a rule made up by the majority to get the minority to assist in their own subjugation.
When a bill is first presented for 1st reading, it is then sent to a committee for discussion, amendments, etc. before being sent back to the House for 2nd reader, where it can be amended by the full House. In short, the “second reader rule” says that members of the committee where the bill came out of can not speak out against the bill or amend it on second reader after the bill has left the committee and gone to the floor.
The Committee Chairman (all of the majority party) argues that the “second reader rule” is a way of showing respect for the work of the committee. In reality, the rule acts as a damper on decent. When the minority party complies they are effectually acting as enablers to their own subjugation by helping the majority party to marginalize the minority opposition voice. Those who know the most about the bill coming to the floor are those who sat on the committee, heard the testimony and participated in the process of getting the bill out of committee. No place in the country (other than Maryland) does any legislature have a rule that prohibits the minority party members from participating in the process by impending the exercise of their 1st amendment right to speak in opposition at any stage of legislative proceedings.
Those members of the minority party in Maryland who have the temerity to challenge the second reader rule and actually represent their constituents by speaking out on second reader have been threatened with being moved to different committees, having their offices moved or losing privileges such as being in “the back room” where the real decisions are often made.
During the Special Session we were able to make the point on the floor that there is no second reader rule in the House Rules, Mason’s Rules or in any other written form anywhere. In fact, I argued that the House Rules imply that opposition opinions are encouraged because in Rule 407, Special Reports, it reads “a report of the committee shall include…”
(7) Any statements of dissenting committee members filed with the committee in time to accompany the report.
The Republican Party in Maryland and dissenting democrats should not be dependent upon a benevolent majority to express their opposition. Clearly the intent of the rules is to encourage minority or opposition opinions. The effect of unwritten rules such as the second reader rule is to promote the tyranny of the majority.
Now that the Republican party has stated its’ opposition to future compliance with the second reader rule, the minority voice in the State Legislature can now freely be heard at all stages of debate.
|
