Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Smitherman criticizes special order practices and urges fairer consideration for minority caucus bills
Summary
Senator Roger Smitherman used a lengthy floor statement to criticize the special order calendar process, saying the minority caucus is being denied proportional floor time for its bills and urging procedural fairness; the special order calendar had been adopted earlier in the day after recorded votes.
A prominent floor exchange on April 9 focused on how the Senate sets the daily special order calendar. Senator Roger Smitherman (Senate District 18) used his time on the floor to argue that the minority caucus had not been given proportional consideration on the special order calendar and called the practice “tokenism.”
Smitherman said he had repeatedly requested that roughly one‑third of special order slots be allocated to minority caucus bills, and he described the current practice as denying minority members the opportunity to represent their constituents. His remarks included questions about how cosponsorship and committee scheduling practices affect whether bills receive committee consideration and placement on the calendar.
Other senators used the floor time to emphasize the value of committee vetting and public input, and to urge bipartisanship. Earlier in the day the Senate adopted a special order calendar in two separate procedural votes during the session (one recorded late morning, another later in the day); on the later recorded vote the special order calendar was adopted 25–5.
Smitherman’s remarks ranged beyond the calendar dispute; he spoke at length about efforts to support military personnel, the need for better legislative staffing and resources for members, and broader concerns about legislative process and constituent representation. Several senators acknowledged the need for transparent committee processes and public input in committee consideration of bills.
The exchange did not produce a formal change to the rules or calendar during the session, but highlighted procedural tensions and set the stage for possible follow‑up on committee scheduling and calendar practices.
