No vote, no pay.
That will be the rule for lawmakers if a bill proposed by a West Valley representative is passed. Rep. Jerry Weiers says he’s hoping it will result in more legislators participating in what should be their primary job function.
“All the meetings in the world don’t make a flipping difference if we’re not there to vote,” he said. “If we don’t vote, we’re not doing our job.”
To persuade lawmakers to be on the House or Senate floor when it comes time to vote, Weiers, R-12, plans to hit them in their pocketbooks. His proposal would require lawmakers to forfeit a day’s pay, which he estimates to be $175, if they are not present for voting and their absence is not excused by the House speaker or Senate president.
Such a law, he says, would put lawmakers on even standing with the majority of Arizonans, who don’t get paid if they don’t go to work.
“We’re no better than the general public,” he said.
But Sen. Tom O’Halleran, R-1, argues that legislators often have other official business that draws them away from the Capitol.
“You might have something scheduled in your district that’s related to legislative work, and leadership decides to have a floor vote,” he said.
And distance exacerbates the problem for rural lawmakers like O’Halleran and Rep. Lucy Mason, R-1, who share a district that’s almost 9,000 square miles, with most of the population centers at least an hour from the Capitol.
Such scheduling conflicts, Weiers says, wouldn’t necessarily mean a lawmaker would have to give up their pay that day. Legislative events or family emergencies, such as the one that caused him to miss five votes in April, are exactly why the bill includes an exception for excused absences.
Weiers also says the bill, if it becomes law, will discourage legislators from dodging votes on contentious bills. The practice, known in political circles as “taking a walk,” is used mostly by lawmakers who do not want to take a public stance on an issue if they think the vote will be used against them in an upcoming campaign.
Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-17, says lawmakers shouldn’t walk out on votes to protect themselves, but she also doesn’t think they should be punished if they do.
“Very few things down here are black or white,” she said. “I just think [the bill] is too simplistic of an answer.”
Weiers does have a potential ally in Democrat Steve Gallardo, D-13, who says he agrees with the concept of creating more accountability for legislators.
“I think it’s important that all 90 of us do our jobs,” he said. “If we’re not there, we’re not doing the job, and the only ones who are cheated are the constituents.”
Though he says determining who should get paid how much each week would be a “nightmare” logistically, Gallardo says he would be willing to support the measure.
O’Halleran, however, pointed out that lawmakers already face penalties for not voting.
“If you miss too many floor votes, you won’t get a paycheck, because the citizens will say, ‘What the hell are you doing down there?’” he said.
In addition to docking pay, Weiers’ measure would require the Legislature to post daily attendance and voting statistics on the Web for easy public access.
That, Gallardo says, is probably a more effective manner of pressuring legislators to vote more often.
“If you really want to hold people accountable,” he said,” I think the idea of making this information public is hammer enough.”
Although Weiers says the half-dozen or so lawmakers he has approached with the bill have expressed “overwhelming” support, he doesn’t expect the Legislature as a whole to endorse his ideas as enthusiastically. But he figures he quickly will get the public on his side.
“I don’t think there’s a single citizen in Arizona who would not like this bill,” he said. “We’ll see if it gets buried in someone’s drawer in a committee or if it’s allowed to move forward.”