Arkansas Blog

Here's a crazy idea. How about following the law instead of trying to come up with creative ways around it?

I am with Real,

It was overwhelmingly voted in by the voters.

Who are these elitists that know that the dumbass mistakenly passed it.

I personally voted against it but other than guessing what the voters intended why are they planning to go against the vote results?

I actually think this is a good idea that will be a lot of bipartisan support. I don't see how this overrides the voters as there will be annual sessions and if there needs to be changes (and there is little doubt there will be) they can be made. By continuing to plan for two years, the legislature can keep its current budgeting process in place with an opportunity to review the budget each year for any changes. This will also hopefully keep the new even year session activity to a minimum, which I think most people will appreciate. Seems like a win-win to me.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Amendment 86 doesn't require annual budgets, just annual appropriation bills. Continue to budget for the biennium, but meet in even-numbered years to fine tune the budget and pass 2nd year appropriation bills. Save the Ledge having to go thru the laborious budget hearings, save state agency time in preparing budgets.

Nah, no compromises or innovative ideas. Let's just admit it: Dumb clucks that we are, the 643,072 of us who voted for annual sessions (and against budgeting for two years) could not possibly have known what we were doing! Thank God for a few all-knowing legislators who are engaged in "preliminary conversations" about proposing to the people in 2010 a constitutional amendment to repeal, entirely, our stupid mistake!

Absolutely durangokid.

I look forward to eliminating it by amendment in 2010 along with a few others that were Bush-sized faux pas.

However, when the votes are counted and it passes, it is the law of the state of Arkansas until repealed or declared unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.

What a bastardized interpretation of a roundly approved ammendment....

My sentiments, too, Basil. docholliday, I doubt you'll get a chance to help repeal Amendment 86 in 2010, because I don't think it'll be up for a vote. You may recall that four years ago, the General Assembly referred to voters a plan to lengthen the limits on their legislative terms. The proposal was voted down by more than 2 to 1, approximately the same margin by which Amendment 86 passed last week. Many in the General Assembly would likely resist setting themselves up for another embarrassment like that. Besides, there's this question: If legislators were opposed to annual legislative sessions, why did they vote resoundingly last year for the joint resolution that put the measure on the November ballot?

durangokid,

Time will tell, but in hard times, as the voters see the increases in the cost of the legislature due to what I consider a dumb amendment there is the potential for voter-outrage-inspired change attempts.

"If legislators were opposed to annual legislative sessions, why did they vote resoundingly last year for the joint resolution that put the measure on the November ballot?"

Great question durangokid! I guess Harrelson forgot about that?

I voted against referring it out. Besides, the proposal doesn't circumvent the will of the people. It streamlines the process in order to save you, the taxpayer, some money in the long run. We'd still meet and debate agency funding on an annual basis. Still, if there's no reason to spend additional public money debating agency funding if nothing has changed as far as forecasting and needs, why spend 30-45 days at the Capitol? Nothing wrong with being efficient, and doing so isn't contrary to wishes of the electorate.

ARK. BLOG: Amen. And interesting question: What WAS the will of the people in approving this measure? Why wouldn't it have been expeditious handling of the people's business, as opposed to extended folderol masking all kinds of special interest closed-door deals. Keep it simple.

If you don't want to come to LR once a year for a session, then resign.
If 30-45 days is too much for you, then resign.

The people have made it clear that they want yearly sessions with either other one of them dedicated to the budget only.

Next Arkansas voters need to pass a "coffee cup" ethics law. Obviously the legislature isn't going to do it.

Steve, now that the Arkansas electorate has decided that its General Assembly will meet annually, only five states remain with every-other-year sessions of their lawmakers. Why do you suppose that is?

ironic, in terms of number of sessions to attend, the amendment just effectively doubled the length of each legislator's limited terms.

talk about getting people to vote against their own interests
(something to which Arkansans proved unusually susceptible this year)

goodbye budget surplus in 3, 2, 1 ...