Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Every state legislature in the United States is divided into a considerable number of standing committees. In spite of obvious advantages which seem to render it indispensable, the development of the committee system has been attended by great evils. Indeed, it is perhaps not too much to say that with the committee system the worst evils connected with legislative organization and procedure are intimately associated.
It is the chief purpose of this paper to point out the principal weaknesses or defects of the committee system in connection with state legislatures generally, and particularly the defects which have appeared in the practical operation of the system in the Illinois legislature; and at the same time to discuss certain proposals designed to remedy these defects.
2 Among the states where committees are appointed by a committee on appointments are, Nebraska, Montana, Ohio (senate), Illinois (senate), West Virginia, Mississippi, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Virginia, Kansas (senate).
3 See Follett, M. P., The Speaker of the House of Representatives, p. 155.Google Scholar
4 Senate Journal, 50th Gen. Assem., 1917, pp. 2, 3.
5 Haines, Lynn, The Minnesota Legislature of 1911, p. 29.Google Scholar
6 In this connection see Statute haw-Making in Iowa, p. 558.
7 Statute Law-Making in Iowa, p. 559.
8 From a letter received from A. E. Sheldon, Director of Nebraska Legislative Reference Bureau.
9 House Rules, 49th Gen. Assem. of Ill., Sec. on Committees.
10 Senate Rules, 49th Gen. Assem. of Ill., Sec. on Committees.
11 Illinois Legislative Voters League Assembly Bulletin, July 20, 1916, p. 9.Google Scholar
12 House Journal, 50th Gen. Assem., Tuesday, Jan. 10, 1917, p. 3.
13 Haines, Lynn, Searchlight on Congress, Oct. 16, 1916, p. 3.Google Scholar
14 House Rule 23, p. 81, “List of Members,” 1916, compiled for General Court of Massachusetts, by Henry D. Coolidge, Clerk of Senate, and James W. Kimball, Clerk of House.
15 See Reinsch, P. S., American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, pp. 173–74.Google Scholar
16 The joint rules of the Vermont legislature require, for example, that “Committees of like functions of the House and Senate, may for the purpose of facilitating business, meet together as a joint committee for the purpose of public hearings. They may consider in joint conference all measures but shall take action separately, and shall report only to the respective houses.” Jointrules of the Senate and House of Representatives, Vermont, 1917, Rule 5.
17 House Rules, Pennsylvania, 1915, Sec. on Committees. Smull's Legislative Handbook, 1915, p. 1176.
18 Reinsch, P. S., American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, p. 164.Google Scholar
19 Fleischer, Alexander, “Pennsylvania's Appropriations to Privately Managed Charitable Institutions,” in Political Science Quarterly, XXX, p. 28 (1915).Google Scholar
20 Reinsch, P. S., American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, p. 165.Google Scholar
21 California Assembly Daily Journal, Friday, Jan. 12, 1917. Announcement by speaker suggesting tentative schedule of committee meetings, p. 17.
22 Legislative Voters League of Illinois, Compilations (unpublished).
23 Legislative News, Jan. 11, 1915, Bulletin 14, p. 4. (Published by Voters Legislative Association, Albany, N. Y.)
24 California Legislative Assembly Journal, Friday, Jan. 12, 1917, pp. 17–18.
25 Nebraska, Legislative Manual, 1917, p. 40Google Scholar, Senate Rule XXIII (2).
26 See p. 631.
27 Among these states are Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Nebraska, Illinois (house), Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
28 Nebraska, Senate Manual, 1917, p. 39Google Scholar, Senate Rule XXIII (1).
29 The Clerk's Manual of the State of New York, 1916. Rule of the Assembly, no. 19, p. 84.
30 Wisconsin, Assembly Manual, 1913Google Scholar, par. 35, rule 28, p. 55.
31 Massachusetts Reform Committee, 1915.
32 Illinois House Rules, 1917, Sec. on Committees.
33 Legislative Voters League of Illinois, Compilations (unpublished).
34 Munro, Fayette S., Legislative Spendthrifts, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
35 Statute Law-Making in Iowa, pp. 588–589.
36 Wisconsin, Senate Manual, 1913, p. 78.Google Scholar Wisconsin allows to no employee compensation for any time except that for which he is actually in attendance, except when absent with leave in writing from his superior officer.
37 Illinois Legislative Voters League, Compilations (unpublished); Illinois House Rules, 1911–12.
38 These states are Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. North Carolina requires that all bills reported unfavorably shall lie upon the table, but may be taken from the table and placed upon the calendar at the request of any senator.
39 Legislative News, Jan. 10, 1917, Bulletin 26, p. 1. (Published by the Voters Legislative Association, Albany, N. Y.)
40 Philadelphia Public Ledger, Jan. 11, 1915.
41 Sifting or steering committees are appointed by the presiding officers in the following states to take charge of pending bills: Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, New Mexico (house), North Carolina, North Dakota, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and probably in other states. In Alabama, Illinois, Oregon and Washington the rules committee acts as a sifting committee. Such a committee is chosen by caucus in Indiana. The committee on committees on the senate of New Mexico appoints a sifting committee.
42 Statute Law-Making in Iowa, pp. 546, 558.
43 The following fifteen states require committees to report back all bills within a stated time which varies with each state: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York (assembly), Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming. For the remaining thirteen states that require a report upon the vote of a majority, see footnote 38.
44 House Journal, 27th Gen. Assem., 1871, Sec. on Rules; Tuesday, Jan. 16, 1917, p. 3. For the variation of the membership of this committee, see committee No. 59, Table III. Reference to committee No. 71 on Table IV will show that the standing committee on rules did not originate in the Senate until the 34th Gen. Assem. in 1885.
It is interesting to note the relation in the development of the Illinois rules committee to that of the United States house of representatives. Up to 1860 the rules in Congress were enlarged mainly by amendments presented by individual representatives and required to lie upon the table for one day. Select committees were resorted to from time to time, but were usually confronted with the difficulty of getting the house to consider their report. A standing committee on rules was created in 1849 but lasted for only two Congresses. In 1858, a motion was made and adopted which created a select committee on rules to consist of four members together with the speaker. The presiding officer had never before served as a committee member nor has he on any occasion since belonged to any other committee. In the rules of 1880, the select committee of five was changed into a standing committee. Once organized as a standing committee, rulings followed which tended to give it a place of high privilege. Although in 1871 the congressonal committee on rules was still operating as a select committee, it is quite possible that the increasing importance of this committee in that decade may have influenced the leaders of the Illinois house that year when they formed their first standing committee, to be composed of the speaker as chairman and six other members.
45 House Rules, 47th Gen. Assem., 1911, Rule 59.
46 These states are: Illinois, Alabama, Oregon and Washington.
47 Reinsch, P. S., American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, p. 179.Google Scholar But in the Illinois 49th general assembly eleven of the most important bills went to conference committees. Illinois House Journal, 49th Gen. Assem., 1915, Synopsis of Legislation.
48 Haines, Lynn, Minnesota Legislature of 1911, p. 54.Google Scholar
49 Legislative Voters League, Compilations (unpublished).
50 The Pennsylvania house requires that a conference committee shall not have power over any part of a bill except as to which a disagreement has existed between the two houses. Rules of the Penn. House, 1917, Rule 5. Smull's Legislative Handbook, p. 1173. The Wisconsin senate in 1913 expresses its approval of this reform by proposing a joint rule to the effect that the managers of the conference shall confine their report to the differences of the two houses that shall be referred to them. The Wisconsin assembly, however, failed to adopt the recommendation and the regulation of the conference committee in that state remains in the former lax condition.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.