As I was driving down I-15 at rush hour, I decided to check which bills were new and fresh on the Utah State Legislature web site when, all of a sudden I came across this little gem. Naturally this would distract me to the point where I nearly slammed into the back of a semi transporting hazardous materials. Thankfully I kept my head on a swivel and narrowly avoided disaster. Thank goodness that Representative Carol Spackman-Moss (D – Holliday, District 37) has proposed H.B. 248. Woah, I just had a case of Deja Vu!
The simple fact of the matter is that H.B. 248 is exactly the same has Representative Riesen’s H.B. 95, with the notable exception that Spackman-Moss’ bill allows for hands-free head sets to be used while driving without penalty.
So why do I even bother to bring this bill up? Well today you are getting another civics lesson – this time regarding how and why bills are changed and duplicated.
As you may or may not know, a bill can be changed by any legislator at any time during debate – this is what we call an amendment. Sometimes amendments are good and add to the substance of the bill; sometimes amendments are bad and are designed to prevent the law from going into effect; and sometimes (and this is when things get real fun) amendments can totally change the intention of a bill, oftentimes by simply adding the word “not” at key points.
Once an amendment is proposed the legislator sponsoring the bill is asked if they support the amendment – this is just a formality as the legislative body will vote to accept the amendment soon after the legislator sits down. If the body wants puppy kicking to be part of a bill, by damn they can vote that in.
But puppy kicking is a horrible thing! Why would anyone vote for that? Well voting for an amendment and voting for a bill are two very different things – you may hate a bill and want to do all you can to make it less palatable for those on the fence. If your amendment passes, you can vote down the bill even though you have personally added to it.
This is why legislators often have duplicate or extremely similar bills. Sometimes one legislator gets an idea for something like preventing cell phone use in cars, and another thinks it may be a good idea to add something extra to a bill (like allowing hands free headsets). Rather than risk having your amendment shot down, you simply write your own bill and try to push it through.
Other times legislators will team up with members of the opposite chamber and propose the exact same bill. The logic behind this is that both sponsors reasonably expect that the bill will fail in one chamber but not the other. Bills often gain more weight once one body has decided to approve a bill, and it adds legitimacy to the cause it is championing. By having duplicates, the respective bill proposers know that not only do they have an ally in the other chamber, but they have better odds of gaining attention for their bill.
So sorry I tricked you into thinking that you were going to get another bill to watch – I am just sneaky like that.
By the way, I support this version of the bill a little bit more, as I feel it is a reasonable compromise.
