Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the House Rules Electronic Voting Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House rejects rule to temporarily obscure voting board after heated debate
Summary
The Utah House voted 28-44 to reject House Resolution 6, a proposed rules change that would have allowed the chamber to temporarily mask individual votes on the public voting board; supporters said it would reduce stereotyping, opponents said it would hinder deliberation and transparency.
The Utah House of Representatives defeated House Resolution 6, as amended, on Feb. 8, 2005 by a vote of 28 to 44. The resolution sought a rules change to allow the chamber to hide the display of how members had voted on the public voting board until the presiding officer chose to reveal the results. The House also approved an amendment setting the rule’s effective date to Jan. 1, 2006 before taking the final vote.
Sponsor remarks framed the idea as a tool to reduce social pressure and stereotyping. The sponsor argued the temporary cover would “take the social pressure off” and force members to read and question bills themselves rather than rely on visible board signals. Drawing historical parallels, the sponsor said the change would help freshman members avoid being stereotyped and encourage more careful deliberation.
Opponents said the change would make the job harder and reduce useful information that members use to decide on complex bills. “We need everything we can get to make decisions,” Representative Steve Clark said, adding that he relies on colleagues’ debate and votes as part of the legislative process and would oppose the measure. Representative Erichhardt called the proposal unnecessary and said, “We don’t need a farce like covering the board to make us feel better about ourselves,” arguing that informal cues and floor debate already permit coordination.
Supporters, including Representative Hughes and Representative Hansen in questioning, said masking the board could slow the process in productive ways and encourage representatives to bring more questions to the floor. In response to a technical question about timing, the sponsor said the board could not be covered immediately under the bill’s language but could be implemented after a 96-hour window or once proper steps were taken.
After debate was cut off on a motion for the previous question, the House voted and the clerk announced that House Resolution 6, as amended, received 28 yes votes and 44 no votes and was filed. The House also adopted an amendment earlier in the session that would have delayed any implementation until Jan. 1, 2006.
With the resolution defeated, the House will continue current voting procedures. There was no subsequent motion to reconsider recorded in the transcript.
