original link: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/09/present.html
"The point ... is that the 'present' vote is an accepted and frequently used gambit/tactic in the Illinois legislature that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle use to advance their agendas. If you'd like to point to particular votes on particular issues/bills and create an argument why Obama showed a failure of nerve, I welcome that kind of analysis. I continue to hold in contempt the sort of sweeping dismissal of this tactic to indict the character and judgment of one Senator."
[Barack Obama] ran for the state legislature and he got elected, and nearly 130 times he couldn't make a decision. He couldn't figure out whether to vote yes or no. It was too tough. He voted . . ."present." . . . For president of the United States, it's not good enough to be present. You have to make a decision.....Rudy Giuliani, in his keynote speech last week to the Republican National Convention We don't have a "present" button as governor—we are expected to lead, we are expected to take action and not just vote "present."...Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, speaking to a gathering of governors Thursday in St. Paul
[Barack Obama] ran for the state legislature and he got elected, and nearly 130 times he couldn't make a decision. He couldn't figure out whether to vote yes or no. It was too tough. He voted . . ."present." . . . For president of the United States, it's not good enough to be present. You have to make a decision.....Rudy Giuliani, in his keynote speech last week to the Republican National Convention
We don't have a "present" button as governor—we are expected to lead, we are expected to take action and not just vote "present."...Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, speaking to a gathering of governors Thursday in St. Paul
Well, well. Back for a return political engagement is the charge that Obama was the Hamlet of Springfield, the melancholy legislator tortured by indecision: To vote or not to vote? That is the question.
It's based on the fact that Obama voted "present" on 129 bills and 11 personnel appointments during his eight years here as a state senator. During a primary season debate, Obama's former Democratic rival Hillary Clinton referenced these votes—about 3.5 percent of the some 4,000 Obama cast in the General Assembly—and sneered, "It's very difficult having a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote." For the audience, she translated "present": "That's not `yes.' That's not `no.' That's `maybe.' " That's not true. Because bills need "yes" votes to pass, "present" translates to "a soft no," as Deputy Republican Senate Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont put it. "One use for it is when you favor an idea, but you think the bill has a fatal flaw of some sort," she said. "Another is when you have a conflict of interest. And another is when you want to play both sides of the fence . . . or to avoid casting a vote that your next opponent will try to take out of context." Across the aisle, Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat, defined "present" as "no with an explanation." Cullerton said another use of the seemingly squirrelly vote is to "signify displeasure with the process, but not the concept." He added that you'd be hard-pressed to find members of the General Assembly—including key allies of John McCain (see links area below)—who don't use it from time to time for various reasons. Illinois legislators have been casting "present" votes since at least 1931, according to the House clerk's office. But the idea hasn't swept the nation. A recent survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that only Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas allow similar options in at least one chamber. Lawmakers in Hawaii can vote "kanalua," meaning undecided. But House clerk Pat Mau-Shimizu said Monday that it's more of a stalling tactic than a hedge or protest, and that "kanalua" turns into a "yes" after the third and final roll call. Most Hawaiians don't understand it, she said.
And most Illinoisans don't understand the subtleties of "present" votes, in part because they mean different things (including unsavory, slippery things) at different times. Obama has defended many of his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate as part of the larger legislative strategy of the Democratic caucus and not a failure of nerve or attempt to conceal his true sentiments from voters (see earlier column below). I'm not here to referee that claim.
I'm here to say that there's only one word for the integrity of those who use the raw number of an Illinois legislator's "present" votes to draw a conclusion about him:
Absent.
UPDATE: I had trouble reaching Ill. Sen. Kirk Dillard (R.-Hinsdale) yesterday, but we spoke this morning. He said the "present" vote issue "is not one I'd get on Obama for."
Dillard said he frequently votes "present" "because the legislative process is so sloppy we get mish-mash to vote on. Particularly when you're in the minority party, it's a way of saying, hey, let's spend more time on this bill and get it right."
I also had trouble yesterday reaching Ill. Rep. Jim Durkin (R.-Western Springs), the co-chair of John McCain 2008 in Illinois. The Obama campaign has documented 41 "present" votes by Durkin since 1999 (see photo image files one and two ). But we connected this morning:
"Everybody does it," Durkin said, confirming what other Illinois lawmakers have said regarding the variety of possible reasons for a "present" vote: Sometimes it reflects a conflict of interest, sometimes it's a form of protest, and sometimes "it's what you do when you don't want to get saddled with a vote that makes you look too far to the left or to the right."
Given that, I asked him, is it fair to simply total up a legislator's "present" votes and come to some conculsion about his political courage?
"I'm not sure if it's fair or not, but that's the reality of our political environment," Durkin said. "It's fair to at least raise the question."
So I raised the question: You've watched Obama's rise pretty closely. Do you think he's indecisive?
"I can't say whether he's indecisive or not," Durkin said. "I know he's a good politician. He wanted to make sure he was careful about the votes he was casting on hot-button issues."
So he's crafty and indecisive?
"Crafty and indecisive, I think, are synonymous," Durkin said. "It is what it is. He needs to explain these votes to the American people."
Finally, here's an amusing "gotcha" moment from ABC News "Nightline" in February:
Sen. Dan Cronin (R.-Elmhust): Really you don't want to be recorded as a guy that can't make up your mind. I mean, there's a reason why the present button is yellow. Whatever it is he didn't want to stick his neck out. He didn't want to risk alienating some group.ABC correspondent Terry Moran: The Obama campaign says that Cronin himself voted present 101 times while they served together
LINKS
The Thicket Blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures: Obama Candidacy Brings State Legislatures into Presidential Spotlight
'Present' votes defended by Illinois lawmaker by Daniel C. Vock, Stateline
Hawaiian Legislative Handbook (look up "kanalua" in the glossary)
EARLIER STORIES:
Disparagement of Obama votes doesn't hold upMarch 9, 2004 Zorn column
You want to talk about ducking issues Mr. Obama? Where were you in Springfield when there were six pro-choice votes called? You were present or not present, but you weren't there to vote. So let's not talk about who ducked issues here. ...Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, at the Feb. 23, 2004 Democratic debate. Seven times, Barack Obama ducked [the issue of abortion]. ... Each time he ducked by voting `present' instead of taking a stand....Blair Hull campaign flier.
You want to talk about ducking issues Mr. Obama? Where were you in Springfield when there were six pro-choice votes called? You were present or not present, but you weren't there to vote. So let's not talk about who ducked issues here. ...Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, at the Feb. 23, 2004 Democratic debate.
Seven times, Barack Obama ducked [the issue of abortion]. ... Each time he ducked by voting `present' instead of taking a stand....Blair Hull campaign flier.
This column has the dirt on the issue of state Sen. Barack Obama's "present" votes on tough issues in the Illinois Legislature--votes that at least two of his opponents in the March 16 Democratic U.S. Senate primary say mark him as a coward.
In 1997 Obama voted "present" on two bills aimed at banning so-called partial-birth abortion. In 2001 he voted "present" on three bills that fell under the rubric of "born-alive infant" legislation, and on a bill to require parental notification in cases when minors sought to have abortions.
Additionally, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on a proposal to drop the penalty for carrying a concealed gun from a felony to a misdemeanor.Hull, who has seldom bothered to vote at all in his life, just sent out a mailing citing such votes to suggest they show Obama is weak on issues that his progressive base holds dear.
Do they?
"Anyone who says that a `present' vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn't understand the first thing about legislative strategy," said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood's chief lobbyist in Springfield. "People who work down here and know how things get done are hearing these accusations and saying, `huh?'"
In practical terms, a "present" vote is as good as a "no" vote because the law requires a bill to win the votes of a majority of the lawmakers in either body, not simply a majority of those voting.
If "present" sounds wimpy, that's because it sometimes is. In many cases, according to Paul Green, head of Roosevelt University's School of Public Policy and a longtime student of Illinois' byzantine legislative process, lawmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote "present" on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.
Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat.
He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes.
Why would he then vote "present" instead of a resounding "no" on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?
"To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,'" Sutherland said. "The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present' that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue."
Sutherland said this tactic makes the "present" vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.
She pointed to the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 2001, a bill requiring that an adult family member be notified 48 hours in advance when a minor seeks an abortion.
Obama's "present" vote on that bill is one Hull is attacking him for in a flier decorated with rubber duckies.
Sutherland just laughs. "We also had [Democratic Senate leader] Emil Jones, [current Atty. Gen.] Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present' on that one," she said. "It was all done to pull `present' votes off the fence."
Obama confirmed Sutherland's account of the legislative strategy and said, "No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was."
"Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process," said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
Or you are willing to pretend you don't to score cheap political points.
There's dirt here all right.
It's all over the hands of those pointing the finger.
'Present' votes emerging from the pastFebruary 3, 2008 By Rick Pearson and Ray Long, Tribune reporters; Tribune reporter Ashley Wiehle contributed to this report.
SPRINGFIELD--Between visits from the Miss Illinois County Fair Queen and high school basketball champs, Barack Obama and his fellow state senators considered more than 175 pieces of legislation on a frenetic day in March 1999. Of those measures, Obama voted "present" 31 times.He had plenty of company. On all but two of those roll calls, more than a dozen of his Democratic colleagues did the same -- to protest a Republican budget package.The use of the "present" button in the Illinois legislature increasingly has become part of Sen. Hillary Clinton's criticism of Obama, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. Alleging Obama has a history of dodging tough decisions, Clinton likes to note: "A president can't vote present."Her dig underscores how a peculiar Illinois tradition can be tough to explain on the national political stage.A Tribune review of Obama's voting record found that he voted present on 129 bills and 11 personnel appointments out of roughly 4,000 votes cast during his nearly eight years in Springfield. Casting scores of present votes was not out of the ordinary for an Illinois lawmaker -- nor was Obama's taking calculated advantage of the quirky voting method to skirt political risk.Some lawmakers say they cast present votes to avoid conflicts of interest. Others, such as Obama, have contended some present votes reflected support for a concept in a bill while opposing some of its specifics. Often, Democrats and Republicans vote present to rail at the actions of the other.But in a system where the number of "yes" votes determines if a bill will pass or fail, the "present" vote provides lawmakers a politically convenient way to vote "no" without explicitly doing so and engendering the wrath of constituents, supporters or opponents. Illinois is one of only a handful of states that allow a vote of "present."In many cases, Obama's "present" votes reflected an orchestrated effort by Democrats to register complaints about the actions of Republicans, who controlled the state Senate for all but Obama's final two years in Springfield.Still, he was the lone "present" vote on 10 roll calls, and he often gave no rationale for his decision on measures that, for the most part, were approved with overwhelming bipartisan support.In a statement late Friday, the Obama campaign said he occasionally cast a "present" vote "to advance a legislative strategy designed by progressive groups, indicate that a bill was rushed and needed more work, or signal that legislation may be unconstitutional."The statement then took a thinly veiled swipe at Clinton's voting record: "The challenges our country faces aren't the result of Sen. Obama voting present, they're the results of politicians who voted the wrong way on the war in Iraq."In a recent debate, Clinton seized on a vote when Obama alone voted "present" on a bill allowing sexual assault victims to ask prosecutors to request the sealing of court records.Obama responded by noting he had sponsored such a bill approved by the state Senate, only to learn later that it "needed to be fixed so that it wouldn't be struck down." The Obama campaign said Friday he was referring to concerns that the measure violated free-speech protections prohibiting judges from sealing records of trials held in open court.Legislative records show Obama did co-sponsor a version of the bill backed by Democrats, but it was vetoed by then-Republican Gov. George Ryan. The governor opted to sign an identical bill sponsored by Republicans -- the one Obama voted "present" on. Obama did not state his objection on the floor at the time, though, and the law remains in effect.Much of Clinton's early criticism of Obama's "present" votes have involved his actions on seven bills aimed at restricting abortion. Obama and officials from Planned Parenthood have said the "present" votes were a strategy to give cover to Democrats who might be attacked by Republicans later if they voted "no." But most, if not all, of the lawmakers in question were in politically safe districts.Shortly after Obama's presidential bid was announced a year ago, state Sen. Debbie Halvorson (D-Crete) said her "present" votes were "an easy way of voting" because casting a "no" vote would be "so harsh [since] nobody's for killing babies.""I don't recall any kind of strategy," said Halvorson, now seeking the Democratic nomination for Congress. Planned Parenthood "may have said it was OK to vote 'present,' but no one on that list [of those voting present] needed cover."Obama also has come under fire from Clinton and other critics over his "present" vote on a 2001 measure that would have required a 1,000-foot buffer between adult establishments and schools, parks, churches, day-care centers and homes. Obama, citing the need to maintain local control in zoning matters, urged a "no" vote on the Senate floor. But he actually voted "present" along with four others, including a conservative Republican. The bill failed by three votes.A review of legislative records also showed Obama had his share of voting-button bobbles. At least six times he said he hit the wrong button. Other times, he simply blamed his voting mechanism."My button," he said after one such vote, "seems to be sticking."
ADDENDUM:
August 19, 2008 statement during debate by Ill. Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine) regarding HB 4201, which, in amended form, granted special "homestead exemption" in calculating property taxes on the homes of disabled veterans:
To the motion, Mr. President, this is a substantive change, it’s actually an unconstitutional rewrite of the bill and in all likelihood, would be stricken down in court, of course we all took an oath to uphold the constitution here and for that reason, this is a questionable maneuver. Additionally though, you know, we’ve got a process here, this is a meaningful, significant proposal the merits of which deserve to be considered and when we have an issue like this the normal course is to file a bill, send it through legislative committees, have it pass both houses of the chambers, pretty new concept. Have it pass the Senate, have it pass the House. Have it be heard in committees in both sides. Give our constituents an opportunity to let us know what they think of the bill, because make no mistake, when we’re reducing the property tax on a disabled veteran, again a worthwhile suggestion, again, what we’re also suggesting doing is raising the property tax on everybody else in the residential area in our taxing bodies in our district. Before we vote to raise the peoples property tax in our districts, shouldn’t we at least give them an opportunity to know we’re about to do it and contact us about it? Nobody in the districts knows this is about to happen and that’s not right, that’s a big part of why this is unconstitutional. We have no opportunity to review this proposal, have it vetted by our constituents and have a meaningful debate about it. We can’t even go to committee to discuss it; this is not the proper way to do this. I am more than willing to go back to my constituents over the next six months and if they tell me “I’m willing to have my property taxes raised because I think it’s worthwhile to pay the bill for the disabled veterans” I’ll file the bill in February and we’ll go about doing it the right way. But this isn’t the right way, it’s unconstitutional, it’s sandbagging our constituents and frankly it’s putting us in a trick bag. I’m going to vote present because I don’t want to reject the concept. But the way this is being set up is wrong and I would urge the rest of you to vote present, leave this here, let’s go back to our constituents and find out what they want us to do with this issue and do this the right way.
To the motion, Mr. President, this is a substantive change, it’s actually an unconstitutional rewrite of the bill and in all likelihood, would be stricken down in court, of course we all took an oath to uphold the constitution here and for that reason, this is a questionable maneuver.
Additionally though, you know, we’ve got a process here, this is a meaningful, significant proposal the merits of which deserve to be considered and when we have an issue like this the normal course is to file a bill, send it through legislative committees, have it pass both houses of the chambers, pretty new concept.
Have it pass the Senate, have it pass the House. Have it be heard in committees in both sides.
Give our constituents an opportunity to let us know what they think of the bill, because make no mistake, when we’re reducing the property tax on a disabled veteran, again a worthwhile suggestion, again, what we’re also suggesting doing is raising the property tax on everybody else in the residential area in our taxing bodies in our district.
Before we vote to raise the peoples property tax in our districts, shouldn’t we at least give them an opportunity to know we’re about to do it and contact us about it?
Nobody in the districts knows this is about to happen and that’s not right, that’s a big part of why this is unconstitutional.
We have no opportunity to review this proposal, have it vetted by our constituents and have a meaningful debate about it.
We can’t even go to committee to discuss it; this is not the proper way to do this. I am more than willing to go back to my constituents over the next six months and if they tell me “I’m willing to have my property taxes raised because I think it’s worthwhile to pay the bill for the disabled veterans” I’ll file the bill in February and we’ll go about doing it the right way.
But this isn’t the right way, it’s unconstitutional, it’s sandbagging our constituents and frankly it’s putting us in a trick bag.
I’m going to vote present because I don’t want to reject the concept. But the way this is being set up is wrong and I would urge the rest of you to vote present, leave this here, let’s go back to our constituents and find out what they want us to do with this issue and do this the right way.
Comments are closed for this post.
