Why did HR 5036 Require a 2/3 Majority?

[garybeck]

In this article:

Republican Objections Derail Paper-Ballot Reimbursement Bill for Now
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002704095

it states:

Democrats put the bill on the part of Tuesday’s calendar used for non­controversial measures. It was brought up under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote for passage.

The final tally, 239-178, fell far short of the margin needed.

Why did the Democrats put the bill up for a vote that required a 2/3 margin? what the? Look at the numbers, it had a clear majority, and would have passed otherwise. Now it's considered dead.

Does anyone know which bonehead decided to use the "suspension of rules?" and what the heck they were thinking? Was it a deliberate sabotage or just stupidity?

[MADem]

1. There were apparently a few miscues along the way, as well as some

unmerited optimism:

Democrats have other options for moving the bill through the House.

They could take the measure to the Rules Committee and return it to the floor under a regular order. Then it would need only a simple majority to pass, though opponents would still have some procedural options with which to try to thwart the bill’s progress.

After the vote, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer indicated that the measure was not likely to see further action in the House.

Hoyer, D-Md., said the measure would die in the Senate even if House Democrats brought the bill back using different procedures.

Numerous GOP House members opposed the bill because of its high price tag.....as much as $685 million...Democrats countered that their minority­-party colleagues knew the cost was likely to exceed $600 million when they supported the bill in committee.

Ehlers said he had hoped to be able to negotiate changes to the bill.

“I supported it out of committee because I thought it should reach the floor for floor debate,” he said. “I anticipated it would be taken up under a rule where we might have possibility for additional compromise, but that has not happened.”

Republican Objections Derail Paper-Ballot Reimbursement Bill for Now
The White House strongly opposed the bill, saying “it would create a new program that is largely redundant with existing law, and therefore unnecessary,” but did not threaten a veto.

The bill would authorize one-time-only funding to set up paper-ballot-counting systems....It would also authorize federal reimbursements for hand counts and manual audits of this year’s election results.

I'm guessing the Dems figure they can blame the GOP if (or when) we have another "clusterfuck" election, perhaps???

[kster]

2. They are scattering like the rats that they are

Politicians Dem and Repub can't figure out which way to go, we are on to them and (thanks to the INTERNET) the people that know and understand how the election scam works, grows by the day, we outnumber them, they are scared, for once in their life they FEAR LOSING THEIR JOB.

They need to get something done to calm the masses, so they can continue their scam, BUT NOTHING SEEMS TO WORK.

Soon they will answer to us, as it should be, (Hand count em before they leave the precinct) Hand Counting at the precinct would be their worst F*ck*ng NIGHTMARE! PERIOD ;-)

[tbyg52]

3. 60 has become the new 51

and the D's have just sat by and let it happen.

[Junkdrawer]

4. What does The Leadership do to a bill that it's told not to pass, but...

a vast majority of it's members need to support because of voter support? :think:

[sonias]

5. GOP objects to bill allowing recounts

Politico 4/25/08
GOP objects to bill allowing recounts
Voting rights activists who hoped the federal government would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines have gone from elation to frustration as they watched Republicans who supported such a proposal in committee vote against bringing it to the House floor.

The result: The elections in November will likely be marred by the same accusations of fraud and error involving voting machines that arose in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential race.

When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt’s Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support. But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn’t make it that far.

Larry Norden, director of the voting technology project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, called the vote “a sad statement on how little Congress has done on the issue of making sure elections are as secure and reliable as possible.”

When we have antoher disaster this fall like Florida 2000, you can place the blame squarely on the republicans in Congress. It's all about creating enough chaos for them to steal another election of course. These repub-bots follow orders blindly and when the idiot in charge of the WH says "you will not vote for this bill", they hop right to it. :grr:

Sonia

[garybeck]

6. I don't get it....

There's a 2/3 vote required, and that would not pass the bill... it would only bring it to the floor for another vote, this time a simple majority?

since when do you need a 2/3 vote prior to a regular vote on a bill? this makes no sense. Something is fishy here. I suspect there are some Dems who knew there were not 2/3 votes coming and allowed this to happen.

[sonias]

7. It was supposed to be a non-controversial bill intitially

Since it had very broad bi-partisan support, it was put on a calendar that would have allowed it to simply pass by majority vote. But the repub-bots objected to the bill per the WH bush marching orders and it got pulled and put on a different calendar that required a super majority vote. This was not the Ds doing, it was the Rs. Even the minority party can pull this kind of stunt.

Sonia

[demodonkey]

8. This is what happened.

HR 5036 was reported out of the Committee on House Administration via a unanimous voice vote on April 2. (I was there for the markup that day, and it was very congenial for a Committee Markup.) All minority amendments were agreed to, and prior to that Rep. Holt, his staff, and House Admin staff did their level best to work with the minority party and accommodate their concerns.

This means that both sides agreed that the bill should move (and be passed.) It was planned to move HR 5036 as a http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/suspend_rules.htm">Suspension Bill, a maneuver that is done for non-controversial bills. The advantage of this is that 1) it wouldn't have to go to a separate Rules Committee meeting, 2) there would be no amendments from the floor (i.e. Republicans attempting to attach Voter ID or whatever), and 3) the bill would pass with a strong majority vote that would signal the Senate that they need to do likewise.

Unfortunately Democratic House Leadership allowed HR 5036 to sit for nearly two weeks before bringing it to the floor, giving the Republicans time for second thoughts. Just before HR 5036 was finally scheduled to go to its vote, the minority began withdrawing support.

The kick in the teeth was when the Administration -- BUSH -- stepped in at the very last minute with a statement "strongly opposing" HR 5036 as "excessive spending" (this less than 24 hours before he demanded Congress hand him over $100 Billion -- with a B -- for his war.)

But the bill was scheduled for the floor and Dem Leadership moved ahead to the vote, with the result being only 239 votes in favor -- all but 2 Dems voted for it (Kucinich was the notable Dem vote in opposition) and only 16 fair minded Republicans voting FOR it.

239 would have more than passed it as a regular bill, but it was not the 2/3rd majority required for a Suspension Bill.

HR 5036 could still be brought up as a Regular Bill, but it would have to go through the Rules Committee, and the Republicans will assuredly do a Motion to Recommit (which they have the right to without a majority vote in favor to do that) and then would try to add amendments like VoterID, etc. And all this takes time -- with the clock ticking away toward November -- and even if it gets past the House, (and by some miracle the Senate, which is increasingly unlikely) BUSH will surely veto it. And we do not have the votes (and time) to override a veto.

So -- :shrug: