Setting the Record Straight

How and why legislators structure votes to dupe the public

Anyone who's participated in the lobbying game for a while is familiar with what are often referred to as “structured roll calls.” This is the often cynical political game in which legislative leaders figure out the result they want and then work backwards to determine which lawmakers will be directed or permitted to vote in particular ways. 

The basic idea is that politically vulnerable legislators will be allowed to vote in a way that is considered to be in concert with the tenor of public opinion, while the less politically vulnerable will "take one for the team" and vote as directed. Usually the politically vulnerable are those who face tough reelection fights. The closer one gets to Election Day, the more leeway is allowed to vulnerable lawmakers to do whatever they have to do in order to avoid defeat. Sometimes multiple votes are conducted so that lawmakers can, literally, vote both ways on different versions of the same idea in order to cover all their bases.

Over the years, both major political parties have made effective use of the structured roll call. Once, nearly two decades ago, the Democratic Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives opened the vote on a particularly controversial bill that he supported by directing the House Clerk to record the vote and announcing at the same time (to a round of raucous laughter): “All [election] targets are advised to vote ‘no.’” 

Here in North Carolina, leadership of both parties in both houses has been known to allow a select number of lawmakers with perceived vulnerabilities to vote against their caucus on key votes (even the all-important budget bill) – provided the votes will not affect the outcome.   

Congressional Republicans

In recent decades, no one has done a more skillful job of using the structured roll call than congressional Republicans. Particularly since their rise to power in the mid-1990’s, congressional Republicans have possessed many of the attributes that make structured roll calls possible: a high level of party discipline, a great deal of ideological and social homogeneity and a series of “take no prisoners,” “ends justify the means” leaders like Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, and Mitch McConnell.

A favored variation on the structured roll call involves votes on the far right’s social agenda. In these votes, most members vote “yes,” but a small handful of senators in “safe” seats vote “no” – often with some kind of procedural excuse. Constitutional amendments to ban flag burning (almost all of which always fall a vote or two short of the two-thirds needed) are a classic example. Of course Democrats have often been complicit in this exercise as well.

These narrow misses have helped establishment Republican leaders keep the social conservative base both hungry and at bay. Lawmakers get credit for having supported the kookier ideas on the far right agenda without any real risk that they will become law and the near misses also keep issues alive as tools for fundraising.

Missed it by that much

Another common use of the structured roll call is for the purpose of defeating progressive proposals that are popular with the public. In this arrangement, most Republicans vote “no,” but a handful of vulnerable members are allowed to vote “yes” so long as they don’t tip the balance in favor of passage. This tactic has been employed with great frequency in the Senate where, because of the filibuster rule, it only takes 41 votes to stop just about any proposal.

An excellent recent example of this kind of structured roll call occurred this week when the Senate voted on a Democratic economic stimulus proposal. The Democrats’ version would have directed billions of dollars exactly where economists tell us they should be going, i.e. to the people most likely to spend them (the poor, seniors and the unemployed). The measure was defeated however when only 59 of the 99 senators voting (John McCain was absent) said “yes” to ending a Republican filibuster.

Given that there are only 49 Democrats and two Independents in the Senate, it was necessary for eight Republicans to join them in order to get to 59. Not surprisingly, half of the eight (Coleman of Minnesota, Collins of Maine, Smith of Oregon and North Carolina’s own Elizabeth Dole) are up for reelection this fall. Of the other four, one is    retiring and three hail from the Republican Party’s tiny moderate wing. Collins, it should be noted, also fits into this latter group.  

Elizabeth Dole’s progressive feints

Senator Dole’s inclusion in the list should come as no surprise. As the consummate Washington insider and party loyalist, Dole has made such votes a key part of her five-plus years in the Senate.

For the most part, she votes in lockstep with the Bush Administration and Republican leadership – whether it’s on the war, tax cuts for the wealthy, or even limiting expansion of the SCHIP children’s health insurance program. However, Dole has also been careful to cast occasional votes that seem to shave at least a little bit of the far right edge off of her image and forestall opposition attack ads when she seeks reelection.

These votes almost always come with little fanfare or anything in the way of public statements that might rock the boat. Indeed, they often come with no warning at all and certainly no coordination with progressive advocates and lobbyists that might allow her stance to sway others or make a real difference in the final outcome.

In this regard, the vote on the stimulus package was a classic example. Rather than speaking up or out in a way that might actually have persuaded other Republicans to do the right thing (and commit her publicly to a progressive position), Dole played it close to the vest – waiting until it was clear that her vote wouldn’t endanger the Republican leadership position before voting quietly against her colleagues. Her website doesn’t even mention the vote, much less defend it. In contrast, Senator Snowe issued a strong statement decrying the Senate vote.

Dole’s actions this week were reminiscent of similar previous episodes. In 2004, for example, there was a desperate attempt by advocates for workers to extend an expiring unemployment insurance benefits program. As with her recent actions, Dole stood mute – refusing to publicly take a stand even though her experience as a former Labor Secretary might well have turned the tide. Later, after it was clear that the bill would fall two votes short of the 60 needed (and, as a bonus, embarrass Senators Kerry and Edwards because they were debating in Los Angeles), she quietly voted “yes.” Had Kerry and/or Edwards returned, she would have almost certainly voted the other way.

In both of these cases and others, Senator Dole has evidenced a clear devotion to two overriding political objectives: 1) providing loyal support what can only be described as a far right policy agenda and, 2) doing what she can to cultivate a more moderate public image that will be more acceptable to her constituents – usually by casting meaningless votes that appear to be moderate or progressive. Given the close proximity of this year’s election and Dole’s desire to win another six-year term, it seems likely that we can expect more of these “structured” votes in the weeks and months ahead.

Shining more light

While there is nothing necessarily immoral about structured roll calls or efforts of politicians like Senator Dole to camouflage their records (lawmakers at all levels have been using all kinds of reasons and rationales to justify their votes since the beginning of the Republic), it is important that advocates and journalists remain vigilant in doing what they can to expose such manipulations.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, such exposés have been rare in recent years. Let’s hope that, in the months to come, knowledgeable parties of all stripes and disciplines do a better job of revealing such tactics and of demanding that elected officials of all parties explain how and why they do what they do on our behalf.

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, February 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm and is filed under Setting the Record Straight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.