Additionally, a major task of most lame-duck sessions in recent years has been to complete action on appropriations and the budget. When the President has presented an extensive agenda to a lame-duck session controlled by his own party, it has often approved many of his recommendations (e.g., 1950, 2002, 2004), but when he has done so under conditions of divided government, he has had less success, and has often vetoed measures (e.g., 1970, 1974, 1982). Most, however, could be regarded as at least moderately productive. Some sessions, as well, have deferred major matters to the succeeding Congress (e.g., 1944, 1982, 2004), especially when a stronger majority for the same party was in prospect. Some lame-duck sessions have been held largely for pro forma reasons (e.g., 1948), on a standby basis (e.g., 1940, 1942), or to deal with a single specific matter (e.g., 1954, 1994, 1998). Lame-duck sessions have ended as early as November 22 and as late as January 3, and have extended over as few as one, and as many as 145, calendar days. Some recesses, however, have begun as early as August 7 or as late as November 3, and ended as early as November 8 or as late as December 31. Congress typically reconvened in mid-November and adjourned before Christmas, so that the lame-duck session lasted about a month. Recesses preceding lame-duck sessions have usually begun by mid-October, and typically lasted between one and two months. Prior to 1933, when the 20th Amendment changed the dates of the congressional term, the last regular session of Congress was always a lame-duck session.Ĭongress has held 16 lame-duck sessions since 1940. In current practice, any meeting of Congress after election day, but before the next Congress convenes the following January, is a lame-duck session. The expression is now used not only for a special session called after a sine die adjournment, but also for any portion of a regular session that falls after an election. The board also would pick the agency’s CEO rather than the governor.A lame-duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor's term begins. An Assembly bill would expand the board from 12 to 18 members, leave the number of gubernatorial appointees at six but give Republican leaders four more appointees, resulting in an 11-7 Republican edge. A Senate bill would reduce the number of gubernatorial appointees to the WEDC board by two, creating a 6-6 stalemate. Ensure Evers appointees can’t control the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. “This lame duck session has been a bait and switch to rush through more partisan bills, rig elections and consolidate more power in the hands of Republican politicians,” Shilling said. ![]() Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling issued a statement saying Republicans are throwing a “temper tantrum” after losing the governor and attorney general’s offices. Kaul spokeswoman Gillian Drummond didn’t immediately reply to an email seeking comment. The legislation also would eliminate the state Justice Department’s solicitor general’s office - Kaul wants to shift some positions from that office to environmental enforcement - and force the DOJ to deposit all settlement winnings into the state’s general fund. The Democratic Kaul has pledged to end Wisconsin’s involvement in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the federal Affordable Care Act. ![]() Under the bills, the Legislature’s finance committee would approve withdrawal rather than the governor. If lawmakers feel they represent the state’s best interests, they could push the attorney general aside.Ĭurrently, the governor approves whether the attorney general can withdraw from a lawsuit. Typically the attorney general represents the state in court, but the proposals would allow GOP legislative leaders to intervene in cases and hire their own attorneys. The legislation also would largely sideline Kaul, the new attorney general, unless he adopts Republican stances in court. Scot Ross, executive director of One Wisconsin Institute, which brought the lawsuit, issued a statement saying Republicans are trying to “rig” election rules again. State attorneys have appealed the ruling. Peterson said imposing weekday limitations intentionally discriminates against Democratic-leaning black residents in Milwaukee. ![]() District Judge James Peterson in 2016 struck down Republican-authored restrictions limiting municipalities to one location for in-person early voting and limiting in-person early voting to weekdays. If that proposal passes, it could be headed for court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |