SB 2018-193: Censure Resolution (Failed)

[Pericles]

This may surprise some people, but I'm all for having these mechanisms in place. I remember back in 2017, when then-President dfw resigned, MP Cora made inappropriate comments regarding that resignation and was censured. However, I'd urge the Senate to be very careful in how they use these mechanisms. With elections right around the corner, if a censure is needed it will be issued by the voters in the Senate races at hand, and so there would be serious concerns if the Senate opted to censure a Senator who had been re-elected, therefore making that censure an undemocratic measure. Therefore I'd recommend that, in this case, the censure be considered only if the Senator fails to win re-election, and so it can be issued as a statement by the Senate in the lame-duck period. If I lose I'd still oppose being censured but that would be separate to the democratic nature of it, if I win though censure should not be considered or used.

[Pericles]

I've had a change of heart. I was reading Lumine's argument, and I realized that he's absolutely right. And I could have tried to rebut it with some self-serving political logic, but that would just do everyone a disservice. I also realized my own logic was flawed, because it would make the election into a referendum on this particular controversy. That would do a disservice to the people of Fremont, because the election wouldn't be about the important issues that matter in their lives. And finally, my behavior was wrong, and I deserve to be censured for it-the Senate should send a clear message on this issue. Therefore, I would not object to the issue being brought up for debate. But not only that, I would vote aye on a vote to censure myself. I would also vote aye to censure Senator LT(I also believe that due to his far greater transgressions, he should lose his seat tbh). I do not support expulsion being used in this case though, and in my case I also don't support the voters expelling me from my seat. However, the Senate should address this, that's why I've apologized and why I will vote to censure myself and LT.

[Pericles]

Aye.

[Pericles]

If this does pass I'd recommend that the House amend it so that more than a simple majority is needed for censure, Mr R makes a valid point there. Sorry Yankee.

[Pericles]

If this does pass I'd recommend that the House amend it so that more than a simple majority is needed for censure, Mr R makes a valid point there. Sorry Yankee.

This resolution is a change on the Senate Rules, actually, so it isn't subject to a vote by the House. That's also why Yankee introduced the Motion of No Confidence bill on its own and why it is now part of the House rules.

Ah shoot, then we need to amend it ourselves. It seems like we'd need to introduce a new bill amending it if it passes, or if it fails when it's reintroduced to the new Senate it should be changed to have a higher threshold for censure.

[Pericles]

If this does pass I'd recommend that the House amend it so that more than a simple majority is needed for censure, Mr R makes a valid point there. Sorry Yankee.

     This is an amendment to the Senate Rules, so it won't go to the House. You would need a new resolution to amend it, in which case it would be no more difficult to edit this one and re-propose it in its entirety. I support adding a motion to censure to the Senate Rules and want to see this passed with that edit made to it, but for now I will be voting nay.

Do you believe two-thirds is a sufficient threshold?

[Pericles]

I've amended the legislation and reintroduced it so that censure has the exact same requirements as expulsion. While expulsion is graver, both can't be partisan and leaving open the potential for partisan censures was a mistake. I'd also be open however to allowing the Senate to censure members of the executive branch, as this would be useful in situations where they have behaved unethically but it is unclear whether their offenses should result in impeachment. I'm not sure what the rest of the Senate thinks on this though so if it would jeopardize passage I won't add that in(I haven't added it in but if people support the idea I can amend the bill).