MA: Re-Establishment of a Lieutenant Governor Amendment (Ratified)

[tmthforu94]

I respect the work the Assembly and the governor have put into this amendment, but I am afraid I will be a NAY vote both when this amendment comes to a vote in this body and when it is voted on by the people. Generally I don't think there is a need for an additional regional office. Also, other than causing one more election I don't see how the lieutenant governor will have any meaningful impact. The main responsibilities of the lieutenant governor are already covered by the governor and the speaker of the Assembly.

It would actually be a joint election, as we have set them up in tickets, rather than separate races.

And I'm not sure I quite understand the continued argument on not wanting to create another office. I could understand this if it were about a year ago when we were struggling to get enough candidates to even run for the Assembly, but shoot, we have a LOT of activity in this region right now, as we had several involved members of this region not even get a spot in the Assembly this month.

All I'm asking is that you stay open-minded and give this position a chance. I think people already have their minds made up going in to this and are going in with no desire to try and solve anything.

[tmthforu94]

Can we get some suggestions from the right? Because any idea that has been proposed that gives the Lt. Governor more and separate powers get's rejected by Inks because it gives the Lt. Governor too much power, yet when none of it is there, it gets rejected because there's "no meaningful impact." You can't have it both ways.

[tmthforu94]

Considering the recent amount of activity in our region, plus the high turnout we're getting these days, I would strongly support that idea. However, I want to see what the Federalist members of this chamber think about such an idea since a similar bill was defeated at the ballot box a month ago.

Well, from what I've seen, the next argument will transition into "we should mix the legislative and executive powers". There's always a different reason to oppose this.

[tmthforu94]

As I've said before, any tie-breaking power will be a deal-breaker for me.

What does it matter if you oppose the bill anyway?

Give us an idea of an amendment to re-institute the position that you would actually support?

[tmthforu94]

Other than the necessary fix to the Superior Court, to reflect our recent amendment, I will support the bill as it stands.

In that case, with the update included, I would also like to see the version that stands be passed by the Assembly.

We can take this on a trial by error basis - we have the ability here to be able to watch the position work out for a couple months, and if changes need to be made, they can be. I must say, with it just in text and not in practice, it's hard to be able to tell just how much power and ability a position would have.

[tmthforu94]

We eliminated having joint appointments for one of them, didn't we?

I was unaware that we had, but I could be wrong. Still, I think joint appointments for court and Senate should be OK.

Neither should be that big of a deal, since either will rarely need to be appointed.

[tmthforu94]

After reconsidering, I think we should move this to having only the Governor do nominations for Senate and the Court.  I'll introduce amendments shortly.

Is your idea here to water down the position as much as possible to guarantee that it fail at the public vote?

[tmthforu94]

After reconsidering, I think we should move this to having only the Governor do nominations for Senate and the Court.  I'll introduce amendments shortly.

Is your idea here to water down the position as much as possible to guarantee that it fail at the public vote?

No - my idea is to get a bill that I actually think is a good bill.  I think that's the goal of every Assemblyman.  Assume some good faith here.

But what is good about a position that has so few responsibilities? That makes it pointless.

[tmthforu94]

Governor, if you're unhappy with the bill the Assembly is crafting, why did you propose the Assembly make the Amendment?

You'll have to be a little bit more specific on what amendment you are talking about. I guess I thought Assembly appointments were still joint in the updated version, but apparently not.

[tmthforu94]

Governor, if you're unhappy with the bill the Assembly is crafting, why did you propose the Assembly make the Amendment?

You'll have to be a little bit more specific on what amendment you are talking about. I guess I thought Assembly appointments were still joint in the updated version, but apparently not.

I mean the whole bill.  Why did you introduce this bill to the Assembly just to criticize the decision some of us are makiin.

I didn't introduce the bill - TexasDem did. But why would I criticize the thoughts of some? Because I think what you're going for largely defeats one of the main purposes of the bill. I certainly think the Lt. Governor position, having tickets, will create more interesting elections and it'll be good to have someone help with the Wiki, but I just think there are too few concrete responsibilities, which isn't ideal to me.

[tmthforu94]

None of my ideas have the votes to pass in the Assembly, as they've already been discussed:
It was to implement what I have long advocated for (before the federal amendment, I might add), which is a "hybrid" position with powers in the executive and legislative branch. I think it should at least have some minor role, such as serve as the President of the Assembly, similar what the Lt. does IRL.

[tmthforu94]

None of my ideas have the votes to pass in the Assembly, as they've already been discussed:
It was to implement what I have long advocated for (before the federal amendment, I might add), which is a "hybrid" position with powers in the executive and legislative branch. I think it should at least have some minor role, such as serve as the President of the Assembly, similar what the Lt. does IRL.

So eliminate the Speaker's role, essentially?

If you guys are happy with the bill as is, I'll support its passage here.

No - they would open and close each session and take over if the Speaker ever has a LOA.

[tmthforu94]

None of my ideas have the votes to pass in the Assembly, as they've already been discussed:
It was to implement what I have long advocated for (before the federal amendment, I might add), which is a "hybrid" position with powers in the executive and legislative branch. I think it should at least have some minor role, such as serve as the President of the Assembly, similar what the Lt. does IRL.

So eliminate the Speaker's role, essentially?

If you guys are happy with the bill as is, I'll support its passage here.

No - they would open and close each session and take over if the Speaker ever has a LOA.

I would vote against any such bill.

How is that a dealbreaker?

[tmthforu94]

This should be an interesting week.

[tmthforu94]

If you guys are happy with the bill as is, I'll support its passage here.

NAY

...