When it comes time to vote on the House floor at the Capitol, a representative has only two choices: aye or nay.

It would seem that a rep would just make a simple decision about what the right thing to do is, and to press the corresponding button on his or her desk. In this month’s article, I will explain that often it just isn’t that simple.

One example that illustrates this is the vote we took to establish greater funding for our roads and bridges in Michigan. The bill we were charged with voting on contained elements that I liked and elements that I disliked.

The bill raised less revenue for roads than I thought was needed to do the job. The bill took substantial funds from our general fund rather than only using dedicated sources of funding, such as gas taxes and registration fees, and this caused problems in other areas of our State budget.

If I voted no, however, there might not have been any new funding for roads and bridges, and conditions on our highways would have gotten worse. It seemed that the bill we were asked to vote on was the best compromise possible between competing political interests, and so I voted “aye” even with my reservations.

When we were asked to vote on an education bill to promote better third-grade reading, I struggled with the desire to back certain elements of the bill and to oppose other elements. In this instance, I was opposed to the idea of mandating to local schools the retention, or holding back, of third graders who failed a reading exam.

I did support, however, elements of the bill that promoted earlier intervention to identify and assist young students in the important area of reading skills. In this case, I was able to author an amendment to the bill that delayed for two additional years the retention mandate of any students who failed the test. I hope that we might, in the meantime, be able to eliminate that provision of the law entirely.

Sometimes a rep is able to exert influence on bill language before it comes to a vote. Once a bill is introduced, a rep can approach the bill sponsor with suggestions for changes. Changes can be made during the process of committee hearings and caucus discussions. Changes can be made between House and Senate versions of a bill. Sooner or later, however, the bill is set in its final form, leaving only the choice of “aye” or “nay.”

A fellow rep recently introduced legislation to change speed limit laws in Michigan. The original version of his bill contained the possibility for some rural highways in Michigan to have 80-mph speed limits. Resistance to this led him to change the maximum speed limit to 75 mph and to make other changes to his proposed legislation. Eventually it passed the House by a close vote.

Budget votes are particularly problematic in this regard. I had conversations recently with local public school superintendents who were opposed to a provision in the proposed new school budget that provides some funding to private schools (for certain costs related to mandated safety laws). These public school officials did support, however, the main thrust of the budget bill as it pertained to their funding for the coming school year. Budget bills are complex, and there are always some line items that “aye” voters do not agree with.

I wish it always came down to simply voting for what I feel is right or wrong, but the real world is often more complicated than that. We in the Legislature have to govern — we have to make choices that are often complex and nuanced. We do not have the option of just sitting out a vote or waiting until a bill is crafted in just the way we prefer.

This week we were called to vote again on a package of bills to deal with severe problems in the Detroit Public School System. I am not sure that anyone in the Legislature really liked all the provisions of these bills, but we had to make a choice. There were significant areas of the bill package that I disagreed with, but I was faced with the reality that a “nay” vote would be much worse for the taxpayers in my district, the students in Detroit, teachers in Detroit, and others.

To approach my voting responsibilities with inflexible doctrines like “I will never vote for a tax increase” or “I will never vote for a bailout” would certainly be easier for me, but it would not be a good way to govern. Words like “never” or “always” don’t work well in real situations. These words work well if they are more carefully crafted, such as “I will always vote with integrity to the principles that I stand for” or “I will never vote against the best interests of my district, as I understand them.”

A legislator must utilize reason and judgment, but should always be true to his or her core principles.

 

Dave Pagel is a state representative for the 78th District, which includes portions of Berrien and Cass counties.