Why did Reid vote no?
September 21, 2010 6:44 PM Subscribe
Why did Harry Reid vote against the DADT repeal bill?
According to AP (see e.g. this article), Reid voted no, because "[u]nder Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants."
Does anybody know exactly what rule this is referring to? I know that cloture is covered in Senate Rule 22, but I couldn't find anything that seemed to be relevant to this scenario there.
According to AP (see e.g. this article), Reid voted no, because "[u]nder Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants."
Does anybody know exactly what rule this is referring to? I know that cloture is covered in Senate Rule 22, but I couldn't find anything that seemed to be relevant to this scenario there.
It's part of his job to vote "No" on Democratic bills that are going to lose their votes. This allows him to bring another vote in the future. I don't know the details of the Senate rules involved, but this happens all the time.
posted by alms at 7:01 PM on September 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by alms at 7:01 PM on September 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think voting no offers him any cover at all, given that he's let it be known that he supports the bill.
posted by maudlin at 7:02 PM on September 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by maudlin at 7:02 PM on September 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: According to the Senate website: "Senate rules permit one motion to reconsider any question decided by vote, if offered by a Senator who voted on the winning side. Normally a supporter of the outcome immediately moves to reconsider the vote, and the same Senator or another immediately moves to table this motion, thus securing the outcome of the vote."
posted by BobbyVan at 7:03 PM on September 21, 2010
posted by BobbyVan at 7:03 PM on September 21, 2010
Best answer: I'm not sure, but it may be referring to Senate Rule 13:
When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration;
posted by thewittyname at 7:04 PM on September 21, 2010
When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration;
posted by thewittyname at 7:04 PM on September 21, 2010
Best answer: Under Senate Rule XIII members voting with the majority are afforded certain privileges. In particular:
posted by RichardP at 7:12 PM on September 21, 2010
When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration...Combined with the power to inherent in the position of Senate Majority Leader, it can thus be a tactical advantage for the Reid to switch to winning side if it looks like a bill he supports is going to fail. Thus allowing him to potentially bring up the issue again much quicker, since if here were a member on the losing side of the vote, he'd go through many more procedural hurdles (such as filing a new motion) to bring this issue up again. Given the huge amount of deliberate "log jam" the Republicans have made, this potentially can save weeks or months of time.
posted by RichardP at 7:12 PM on September 21, 2010
By voting "no" (he knew it wasn't going to pass) it allows him to bring it back up for a vote in the future.
posted by leafwoman at 7:31 PM on September 21, 2010
posted by leafwoman at 7:31 PM on September 21, 2010
As other have mentioned, this is purely procedural. Not political.
Harry Reid (a Mormon, and in the toughest reelection fight of his life) did the brave thing today, and when it failed, he did the procedural thing necessary to allow the bill to be resubmitted. I've had my doubts about Harry Reid's spine before, but today he found it.
posted by orthogonality at 7:31 PM on September 21, 2010 [3 favorites]
Harry Reid (a Mormon, and in the toughest reelection fight of his life) did the brave thing today, and when it failed, he did the procedural thing necessary to allow the bill to be resubmitted. I've had my doubts about Harry Reid's spine before, but today he found it.
posted by orthogonality at 7:31 PM on September 21, 2010 [3 favorites]
Oh God, my kingdom for an edit button! I don't know how I managed to so badly garble my post above. Sorry.
posted by RichardP at 7:37 PM on September 21, 2010
posted by RichardP at 7:37 PM on September 21, 2010
Best answer: The theory, in case it needs any more spelling out, is that it doesn't matter if someone in the minority moves to the majority -- it's just a larger majority -- but someone leaving the majority could, in theory, change the minority into a majority.
Most government entities don't let the losing side bring something up for a vote over and over and over; you either have to go through the process to start from scratch bringing a fresh motion, or let it go. The winning side, however, can more easily bring a reconsideration.
A friend of mine just laid the smack down on the losing side of the local county board on an asphalt paving issue (local government deals with very specific questions!) that kept trying to revive the issue through using these rules that don't allow the minority to continue reviving the issue. The guy raising the issue repeatedly was unaware of the rules and got cut off at the knees. On the board I sit on, there's one member who can't stand losing and will try to revive an issue over and over and over again, but procedural rules don't allow him to; he has to start with a brand motion to put it on the agenda. Frequently he can't find anyone to second him (motion has to be seconded to get on the agenda) because he hasn't flipped any votes and just wants to keep losing on the same issue over and over. It would seriously eat up time if he could force reconsideration repeatedly every time he lost.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:10 PM on September 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
Most government entities don't let the losing side bring something up for a vote over and over and over; you either have to go through the process to start from scratch bringing a fresh motion, or let it go. The winning side, however, can more easily bring a reconsideration.
A friend of mine just laid the smack down on the losing side of the local county board on an asphalt paving issue (local government deals with very specific questions!) that kept trying to revive the issue through using these rules that don't allow the minority to continue reviving the issue. The guy raising the issue repeatedly was unaware of the rules and got cut off at the knees. On the board I sit on, there's one member who can't stand losing and will try to revive an issue over and over and over again, but procedural rules don't allow him to; he has to start with a brand motion to put it on the agenda. Frequently he can't find anyone to second him (motion has to be seconded to get on the agenda) because he hasn't flipped any votes and just wants to keep losing on the same issue over and over. It would seriously eat up time if he could force reconsideration repeatedly every time he lost.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:10 PM on September 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
So this is a case where he voted "yes" before he votes "no"? I have heard that somewhere before. If the rule says voted with the majority or did not vote, why didn't he just not vote rather than vote against the way he wants?
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:28 PM on September 21, 2010
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:28 PM on September 21, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dfriedman at 6:48 PM on September 21, 2010 [1 favorite]