![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The Senate Judiciary has tabled HB 9, the Domestic Partnerships bill, by a 6-4 vote.
Supporters of the bill, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Cisco McSorley realized they didn't have the votes. He's been holding up the Judiciary Committee for days, apparently in hopes of being able to squeak this through.
I suppose supporters could "blast" the bill out to the Senate floor. But it's questionable whether there's the votes to pass it. Last year a similar bill was killed by just one vote in the Senate.
Heterosexual sexual couples can relax now. Your marriages will no longer be threatened by gay couples getting equal rights. At least until next session.
Supporters of the bill, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Cisco McSorley realized they didn't have the votes. He's been holding up the Judiciary Committee for days, apparently in hopes of being able to squeak this through.
I suppose supporters could "blast" the bill out to the Senate floor. But it's questionable whether there's the votes to pass it. Last year a similar bill was killed by just one vote in the Senate.
Heterosexual sexual couples can relax now. Your marriages will no longer be threatened by gay couples getting equal rights. At least until next session.
It was a relatively short, relatively sedate debate -- and a very close vote on the domestic partnership bill: 33-31.
And even though most Dems voted for it and most Rs against, it can't be called a strictly party-line vote.
Just a quick glance at the roll call, I see Republicans Justine Fox-Young and Kathy McCoy voted for the bill, while Diane Hamilton -- who was there and asked a question about the bill -- didn't vote.Rep. Eric Youngberg, who voted for the bill in committee, was out of the chamber during the vote. I saw him in the hall afterward and he said he "probably" would have voted for it.
On the Democrat side, Reps. Tomas Garcia, Rhonda King, Debbie Rodella and Richard Vigil voted against HB 9. Four members, all Democrats, were excused.
The bill goes on to the Senate, where it has failed in the past.
UPDATE: I missed some Democrats who voted no: John Heaton, Donna Irwin and Andy Nunez.
And even though most Dems voted for it and most Rs against, it can't be called a strictly party-line vote.
Just a quick glance at the roll call, I see Republicans Justine Fox-Young and Kathy McCoy voted for the bill, while Diane Hamilton -- who was there and asked a question about the bill -- didn't vote.Rep. Eric Youngberg, who voted for the bill in committee, was out of the chamber during the vote. I saw him in the hall afterward and he said he "probably" would have voted for it.
On the Democrat side, Reps. Tomas Garcia, Rhonda King, Debbie Rodella and Richard Vigil voted against HB 9. Four members, all Democrats, were excused.
The bill goes on to the Senate, where it has failed in the past.
UPDATE: I missed some Democrats who voted no: John Heaton, Donna Irwin and Andy Nunez.
The House Judiciary Committee, to nobody's surprise gave a do-pass to the Domestic Partners bill. It now goes to the full House for a hearing. This time it wasn't quite a party-line vote. Rep. Eric Youngberg, R-Albuquerque, voted for the bill
Remember, last year the House passed a similar bill, but the Senate killed it.
Another potential conflict is coming up Wednesday.
The governor's health care bill (HB 62, sponsored by Rep. John Heaton, D-Carlsbad) gets its first hearing Wednesday before the House Health and Government Affairs Committee. But also on the agenda is a competing healthcare bill, HB 147, sponsored by Rep. Danice Picraux, D-Albuquerque. That's 8 a.m. in Room 309.
Remember, last year the House passed a similar bill, but the Senate killed it.
Another potential conflict is coming up Wednesday.
The governor's health care bill (HB 62, sponsored by Rep. John Heaton, D-Carlsbad) gets its first hearing Wednesday before the House Health and Government Affairs Committee. But also on the agenda is a competing healthcare bill, HB 147, sponsored by Rep. Danice Picraux, D-Albuquerque. That's 8 a.m. in Room 309.
- Music:Something weird that Trip Jennings is playing in the media room
The House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee just passed House Bill 9, sponsored by Rep. Mimi Stewart, which would create "domestic partnership" rights for same-sex partners. It passed 4-3 along a party-line vote (Dems yea, GOP nay) as usual. Arguments on both sides were pretty much the same. Bound for House Judiciary (whose chairman Rep. Al Park voted for it on this committee).
This of course is a divisive issue, but here's something upon which all sides can agree:
HCPAC, which handles plenty of mundane stuff but nearly all the controversial bills, meets in one of the smallest meeting rooms in the Capitol. I didn't attempt to count the crowd but there were dozens. All the seats were filled, all the standing room was taken (I barely got in) and there were still large groups folks standing in the hallway outside. At one point -- in the middle of the hearing, the sergeant at arms cleared the meeting room of those standards. (Thanks to the woman who gave me her chair!)
And yet there was a big room with plenty of seats called the House Chambers -- that was completely empty. Right after the meeting started, a bipartisan group of House members led by Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones were trying to convince the sergeant at arms to move the meeting. But as I said, the proceedings had already started. (A former representative pointed out to me that there could have been the possibility of the committee losing its quorum during such a move.)
HCPAC Chairwoman Gail Chasey after the meeting admitted she probably should have checked on having the meeting in the House Chambers. But, she said, she didn't expect to see such a huge crowd so early in the session.
Chasey said the situation shows the need for the $30 million Capitol expansion project -- which was shelved just before the session. I'm not against that. Maybe Room 315 could be converted into something useful, like a broom closet.
Until that golden day however, committee chairs should be thinking seriously of using the House and Senate chambers for the hot-button bills. This has been done in the past for issues like cockfighting and death-penalty abolition.
And for those issues sometimes two or three committees join so they can all hear the same testimony at once. This saves time and tedium as well as providing more comfortable settings for those involved.
This of course is a divisive issue, but here's something upon which all sides can agree:
HCPAC, which handles plenty of mundane stuff but nearly all the controversial bills, meets in one of the smallest meeting rooms in the Capitol. I didn't attempt to count the crowd but there were dozens. All the seats were filled, all the standing room was taken (I barely got in) and there were still large groups folks standing in the hallway outside. At one point -- in the middle of the hearing, the sergeant at arms cleared the meeting room of those standards. (Thanks to the woman who gave me her chair!)
And yet there was a big room with plenty of seats called the House Chambers -- that was completely empty. Right after the meeting started, a bipartisan group of House members led by Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones were trying to convince the sergeant at arms to move the meeting. But as I said, the proceedings had already started. (A former representative pointed out to me that there could have been the possibility of the committee losing its quorum during such a move.)
HCPAC Chairwoman Gail Chasey after the meeting admitted she probably should have checked on having the meeting in the House Chambers. But, she said, she didn't expect to see such a huge crowd so early in the session.
Chasey said the situation shows the need for the $30 million Capitol expansion project -- which was shelved just before the session. I'm not against that. Maybe Room 315 could be converted into something useful, like a broom closet.
Until that golden day however, committee chairs should be thinking seriously of using the House and Senate chambers for the hot-button bills. This has been done in the past for issues like cockfighting and death-penalty abolition.
And for those issues sometimes two or three committees join so they can all hear the same testimony at once. This saves time and tedium as well as providing more comfortable settings for those involved.
