When our state lawmakers get together during the next five weeks or so to play Scrabble, they can use four words containing the letters P and Q. The number increases to sixty-one by the time they get to six-letter words then declines to only twenty-one for words with fifteen letters, according to an internet dictionary of words for Scrabble players.
But it’s not words that might be used as the pressure grows toward the end of the session, it’s the letters that might be heard.
The parliamentary technique of moving the Previous Question is used to cut off debate, sometimes long and tedious debate that is only holding up a vote on a bill, or when time is short toward the end of a session and leadership or sponsors rush to get something done in the last days.
Senator Rob Schaaf of St. Joseph is in the final weeks of his time in the Missouri Senate. Because people throughout the state adopted term limits two decades-plus ago, the people in his district are denied the opportunity to vote for him ever again as their senator. He will leave with a peculiar distinction when it comes to the previous question.
In our long experience covering the Senate, he is the only person who, in effect, PQ’d himself.
Here’s how it happened:
It was on January 28, 2013, early in the legislative session when the Senate was taking a final vote on its rules. In the previous session, in 2012, Cape Girardeau Senator Jason Crowell stopped debate on a bill when he refused to make a closing statement and sat down, thus yielding the floor for other actions but still controlling the bill. The action left the bill in limbo.
Senate leadership at the start of the 2013 session decided to change a rule to stop such actions. Pro Tem Tom Dempsey proposed the rule. Senator Schaaf, in challenging it, suggested amending the proposal to christen it the “Crowell rule.” He then offered a substitute amendment to make the rule known as the “Jason Crowell rule,” a procedural move intended to block any one else from offering an amendment to his original proposal. When he was asked if he wanted to close on his amendment, Schaaf said, “No,” and sat down.
That’s when Senator Kurt Schaefer of Columbia cited another Senate Rule (number 76 for those who like to keep score) that read in part, “In order to maintain the recognition of the chair, the senator must be engaged in debate or in discourse.” Dempsey ruled that Schaaf’s action constituted a failure to engage in debate or discourse, thus bringing the issue to an immediate vote, the equivalent of a previous question motion that debate or discourse be ended and the issue be decided immediately. Schaaf’s amendments lost. The rule proposed by Dempsey was adopted and the Crowell Strategy became in-valid in the Senate.
Senator Schaaf had, in effect, PQ’d himself.
The incident doesn’t show up on the list the press corps keeps of the times the previous question has been used in the Senate, where it is used less frequently than in the House because Schaaf’s action was an unintentional PQ and based on a ruling by Dempsey using another rule. It is not described in the official journal as a PQ issue. It was, after all, an unofficial PQ, self-inflicted.
But it is worthy of being recorded in legislative history somewhere. Might as well be here as anywhere.
State legislators need to remember the ‘Rule of the 5 P’s” in any case: “Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance” Proper use of this rule tends to negate Murphy’s Law if you’re planning ahead.