Why would lawmakers skip vote on easy issue?

MOST families understand the importance of maintaining a savings account for emergencies. Yet in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, this idea is apparently so controversial that nearly one-third of lawmakers run fleeing from it.

Senate Joint Resolution 44, by Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, would have allowed Oklahoma voters to amend the state constitution to raise the cap on the Rainy Day Fund, the state’s saving account. The current cap is 15 percent of the “general revenue fund certification,” which is only a small portion of state spending. SJR 44 would have raised the cap to 15 percent of the total state budget.

That small linguistic change would allow lawmakers to save far more money in future years. The current cap ensures that the Rainy Day Fund tops out at roughly 3.5 percent of total state funding. SJR 44 would allow savings equal to a true 15 percent.

The savings fund only receives deposits in years of surplus, so the proposal wouldn’t affect this year’s $1.3 billion shortfall. But it could allow policymakers to build up savings more aggressively in future years, which means a reoccurrence of this year’s budget environment would be easier to handle.

This probably sounds like a common-sense idea to most Oklahomans, and that’s certainly how the proposal was treated in the Senate, where SJR 44 passed on a 46-1 vote. But it was a different story in the House.

When SJR 44 came up for a floor vote in that chamber on April 21, it failed 44-27. The measure needed 51 votes to pass.

Notably, the title had been stricken from the joint resolution, a parliamentary maneuver that ensures the legislation is not in its final form and must receive additional votes in the House and Senate before going before the voters. And no questions were asked, which suggests all lawmakers clearly understood the bill’s purpose. Yet it failed anyway.

Worse yet, at one point as votes were being cast, a majority of lawmakers supported passage — with as many as 53 votes in favor of the joint resolution. But then lawmakers began changing their votes. It appears at least nine lawmakers voted for the proposal before reversing course.

Just as disturbing, 30 lawmakers in the 101-member House ultimately cast no vote at all. Since the vote occurred at 10 p.m., one might think those lawmakers weren’t physically present. Wrong. When the final vote of the day was cast at 11 p.m. for another bill, only nine lawmakers were absent. Of the 16 Republicans who didn’t vote on SJR 44, only two were absent both times.

That means 14 Republican lawmakers chose not to vote on SJR 44 rather than make public their opinion on whether the state should put more money into savings in the future.

While many Democrats opposed the measure, two Democrats were willing to break ranks to support it — Reps. Claudia Griffith of Norman and Ben Loring of Miami. If two Democrats can take a stand despite the general opposition of members of their caucus, then surely Republicans can take the time simply to vote on the same issue.

Given the $1.3 billion budget shortfall, Republicans will have to make some tough choices this year. That many of them are fleeing even easy votes does not bode well.