Just say “NO” to Annual Sessions
Though the referrendum is a subtle initiative, its consequences are glaring
From, The Kentucky Citizen Digest, January/February, 2001.

For decades, America have been told to “just say no” to a number of things.  Whether that be alcohol, drugs, or high-cholesterol foods, the message is “don’t do it.”  The sad reality that we all know is that it is easier said than done.  Somehow our urges, or desires seem to do us in regularly.  I’ve got an easy victory for you — when Constitutional Amendment #1 appears on your ballot November 7th, it will take only a second of self control to push the “no lever” and end perhaps an addiction greater than all the others combined.

Obviously I exaggerate.  But there are a number of serious reasons to say no to annual sessions for  Kentucky’s legislature.

First, over 1400 bills are proposed each bi-annual session.  From this knowledge flows the argument that a responsible legislature needs more time to thoroughly consider each bill.  You know as well as I, that if we have annual sessions an additional 1400 bills will be introduced in odd year sessions.  In fact, your own gut tells you that if your pet bill did not pass last session, that you will anxiously wait for the very next opportunity to pass it again.  If you are so inclined, how much more so are legislators who are judged by the quantity of bills passed.  So the argument of too many bills for bi-annual sessions does not hold water.  A vote for annual sessions is a vote to increase the size of government and all of its accoutrements.  Are you ready for annual sessions, for “professional, full-time politicians,” huge budgets for state level races and a diet of attack ads, the likes of which you haven’t seen?

If we increase the size of government, we also increase the cost of running the legislature.  Though Constitutional Amendment #1 does not call for a second full 60 days in the odd years, it will create the entire tumult that takes place each time a session comes to order. Experienced Assembly-watchers suggest that it takes at least 6 months to prepare administratively for the session, then there is the session itself, followed by the promulgation of regulations on the legislation that has to be enacted.  Most taxpayers agree that we already get more government than we’ve paid for, why would we want to pay for more?

My third point mirrors my second but focuses not on costs but on the art of making and enacting good legislation.  Kentucky is one of those few states that has not moved in the heavy machinery of annual political uproar but has instead created a cycle that believe it or not, has rhyme and reason.  As mentioned above, it takes 6 months for the Assembly to be fully prepared and primed for its task.  Given our bi-annual sessions, it takes another 3 months to pass legislation.  From there, regulations are written to appropriately enact the will of the General Assembly and then the law is enacted, oftentimes with court action which helps clarify and limit its reach.  Then, perhaps is the most important part — a “down” time, when the enacted legislation can actually be evaluated the rhythm of the people.  Currently, after a year, the General Assembly is ready to re-evaluate or tweak what it has done, honing it to fulfill its desired purpose.

Adding annual sessions will only upset the above-mentioned tempo and add to the turbulence of “big government” regulating more of your life and mine.

Fourth, last and most important, if we need more time to legislate, why don’t we simply use the first 20 days of every bi-annual session that is now virtually wasted?  Allow me to explain.  The last date to file to run against an incumbent legislator comes at the end of January.  It is no secret to anyone observing Frankfort, that controversial legislation is rarely considered January because no legislator wants to inflame constituent, who might go as far as filing to challenge his at.  Why don’t move the filing date to challenge an incumbent to the end of the session?  That way, we reclaim the first month of working time for our legislators, and we are able to hold legislators accountable for every decision they make during the session (particularly the off-the-wall ones made towards the end of the session).

Sure, there are some good logical arguments as to why we need annual sessions, but the side-effects are worse than the proposed cure.  So I highly recommend we take the road less traveled in this political country of ours and simply say “no” to annual sessions, “no” to bigger government and “no” to the ongoing trauma of political turmoil.
 
 

Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander, Executive Director Martin Cothran, Senior Associate Policy Analyst