11th Senate Week in Review [96-2] | 09/15 - 09/22


ebclogo2.png

ebcbreakingnews.png


11th Senate Week in Review [96-2] | 09/15 - 09/22

Written by Kasa and Vor
Edited by Vor



Introduction

Welcome back to Senate Week in Review. The Senate was quite active this week amidst a close by-election, so there are lots of topics to cover.

Senate By-Election

A seat was opened in the Senate following former Senator Prov's resignation. The race to fill it was initially between Cyborg and Olde Delaware, but Cyborg later withdrew their candidacy. Sopo entered the contest just 20 minutes before polls opened and won with 25 votes to Olde Delaware's 17.

Delegacy Nomination Amendment Act (2024)

Senator Rand's bill underwent thorough review by the Senate this week, and seems to have come out in good shape. After the draft was modified to cover the Vice Delegacy as well, Senators warmed to the concept. As a review, the bill would prevent the President or Vice President from being nominated to serve as WA Delegate or Vice Delegate unless they were already holding either of those offices at the time they were elected.

Following some minor procedural issues within the Senate, the bill was taken to a vote.

As of September 25, this bill has unanimously (5-0) passed the Senate. While initially against the bill, Senator Lloenflys ended up voting Aye, saying: "In isolation I probably would have voted against [...] Enough people that I respect feel this is important, however, that I will defer to their collective wisdom on this issue." The bill has since been presented to the President to be signed into law.

Legislative Counsel Act (2024)

This bill was introduced by Senator Rand this week. It would establish a position reporting to and appointed by the Speaker of the Senate, filled by a member of the Bar Association that is not the President, Attorney General, or officer of the Judiciary. This appointee would serve as a legal advisor to the Senate, reviewing bills and ensuring that they do not present "legal, procedural, or drafting issues". As noted by Senator Rand, the purpose of this additional legal oversight is to address issues with bills before they are sent to the President and out of the Senate's control, hopefully avoiding the situation of a bill being vetoed as a result of it conflicting with existing law.

Additionally, Legislative Counsel may appoint other members of the BA to serve as Assosciate Legislative Counsel, and invited to speak on the Senate floor at the Speaker's discretion.

The Senate has responded positively so far, with Senator Lloenflys commenting that he had no "serious objections" to the content of the draft. Senators Cordova and Caldrasa also stated their favourable views on the bill, though both noted that they would like to see Senators excluded from filling the role of Legislative Counsel. Although Senator Sopo has not yet added his comments in the Senate thread, the bill seems likely to pass regardless, with four Senators leaning in favor.

Substitute Rollback Amendment Act (2024)

Following renewed discussions on the topic of Substitute Reform earlier this month, a bill was brought to the Senate floor by Senator Rand. Effectively, the proposed changes involve granting the substitutes more procedural powers (motioning and seconding), the right to vote on challenges to the Speaker, and finally the rights to abstain and decline to abstain (run out the clock) on other matters.

Senate opinion has been evenly split so far. Senator Lloneflys indicated his support, while Senators Cordova and Caldrasa stated their opposition to substitutes voting in general. As such, the bill lays at a 2-2 deadlock, and will likely either require an endorsement from Senator Sopo or an amendment addressing the concerns about substitute voting to ensure it passes.

Elections Act (2024)

Debate on Senator Rand's approval voting overhaul continued this week. Some scrutiny was placed on the components of the bill by Senator Lloenflys, who stated his general opposition to approval voting. Senators Caldrasa and Rand are currently in favor of the bill, leaving it with a tentative 2-1 majority. Senators Cordova and Sopo have not yet posted their thoughts in the Senate thread.

Cordova has, however, expressed favouring approval voting both in his vote for the approval voting amendment as well as in his last Senate campaign platform.

Discussion - Multiple Seat Senators

This thread was created by Senator Caldrasa, raising Rand's point during the by-election that he could technically run for a second seat in the Senate. No one has responded as of Septemebr 24th.

Another Assembly Legislative Harmonisation Act (2024)

This bill was passed by the PA and then unanimously by the Senate. It fixes a minor inconsistency in the People's Assembly Act (2023) regarding PA Chair election.

Circuit Court Abolishment Act (2024)

Despite Calvin Coolidge's defense of his bill, it was tabled this week 4-0. The bill had substantial support from the previous Senate, with favourable views from Senators Eldorin, Calvin (who proposed it), and Sopo. The previous Senate did not move forward with the bill for an extended period of time, which made it the current Senate's purview instead. Most Senators (Cordova, Prov, and Caldrasa) ended up opposing the bill following a post by Rand, and supporting a motion to table. Calvin, who is no longer a Senator, was invited to comment further on the bill, but after a discussion by him and Speaker Rand, who has consistently been in favour of keeping the Circuit Court, none of the aforementioned Senators responded. Senator Lloenflys, who indicated support for the bill in his campaign, ended up reneging, saying: "I'm inclined to leave it in place for now but in the future would be willing to look at alternatives if they are proposed."


Conclusion

The Senate saw a good amount of lively debate this week on several bills, as well as a close by-election that shook up the membership. Hopefully, this trend of high activity continues for a while yet. To find out, join the EBC next week for the next Week in Review, and thanks again for reading this issue.
 
Legislative Counsel Act (2024)
Amusingly, this legislation would not just mandate the Speaker to appoint a LC from the Bar Association, it also mandates a higher standard of activity from the LC than from Senators.

I kind of prefer a Senate system where each Senate is free to choose its own structure / form, including whether it chooses to fill this position in the first place, and whether that appointee needs to be a member of the illustrious bar association.
 
Legislative Counsel Act (2024)
Amusingly, this legislation would not just mandate the Speaker to appoint a LC from the Bar Association, it also mandates a higher standard of activity from the LC than from Senators.

I kind of prefer a Senate system where each Senate is free to choose its own structure / form, including whether it chooses to fill this position in the first place, and whether that appointee needs to be a member of the illustrious bar association.
How is one brief statement per bill a higher activity bar than posting once every 5 days?
 
Legislative Counsel Act (2024)
Amusingly, this legislation would not just mandate the Speaker to appoint a LC from the Bar Association, it also mandates a higher standard of activity from the LC than from Senators.

I kind of prefer a Senate system where each Senate is free to choose its own structure / form, including whether it chooses to fill this position in the first place, and whether that appointee needs to be a member of the illustrious bar association.
How is one brief statement per bill a higher activity bar than posting once every 5 days?

I think that it's possible that this requirement will be only a "brief statement" but it's not neccessarily that:

FO2. (3) At a minimum, the Legislative Counsel shall deliver a briefing on any potential legal, procedural, or drafting issues for any bill or treaty entering a Second Reading

I consider the LC being required to make a contribution to every piece of legislation a higher bar than Senator Activity (which .. do we consider that enforced?), and observing the quality of Senator contributions compared to the expected LC comment... I kind of do see it as a higher bar. Maybe "standard of activity" is wrong, but certainly contribution-wise it is a higher bar.

Any thoughts on binding all future Senates to this structure? I think it's somewhat cumbersome that if a future Speaker / Senate doesn't want this role filled they have to repeal the Act entirely. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
Back
Top