Where is the legislature

There is little doubt that one of the most important tasks of the legislature is to build consensus; a legislature that is effective in this regard is likely to be an effective legislature.

Seventh, these processes not only work to make laws, they are also intended to address problems facing the state. If legislative processes are not related to state needs, they cannot entirely fulfill the expected lawmaking function. Ideally, we expect legislatures to solve problems and improve conditions in the state. At the very least, legislatures have to address problems. Two sets of factors contribute substantially to the ability of a legislature to perform well.

One can be called capacity, the other institutionalism. Capacity in the broadest sense is the resources, the wherewithal for the legislature to do its job. In the parlance of legislative reform, the amount of time in session and in the interim period, the size of the professional staff, the adequacy of facilities and technology add up to legislative capacity. How much staff is needed? How should it be organized? Is a full-time legislature better than a part-time one?

Questions like these deserve attention, although I doubt that the answers are the same in every place. Whether the legislature is more professional or more amateur may not be critical either. Just what combination of resources or how much of each type is optimum or sufficient probably varies from state to state. A vital part of a legislature's capacity is the quality of the legislators themselves.

In considering quality, we have to deal with the issue of professional versus citizen legislators-that is, those who are relatively full-time careerists on the one hand and those who are essentially part- and short-timers on the other.

In just about every legislature, some of each type exist. But in some legislatures for example, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania professionals predominate, while in others for example, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming citizens predominate.

It is not possible to say that one type of member is more desirable than another for a legislature, or just what mix works best.

Quality also applies to the personal characteristics of legislators, and especially of legislative leaders.

The reputations of legislatures in California during the late s and early s and Florida and Minnesota during the s and s were based in large part on the substantial number of able, intelligent, energetic, dedicated and politically skillful individuals who served at the time. These members made a marked difference in the performance of the legislature. Legislators with such characteristics clearly contribute to legislative performance everywhere.

The integrity, or the ethics, of the legislature is an integral part of capacity. Although we do not define legislative goodness strictly in terms of the ethical behavior of members, the ethics of the capitol community and the type and enforcement of ethics laws are among the factors that affect how legislators function. Legislatures characterized by integrity are likely to do better than those where the ethical conduct of members is over the line or too near the line.

Legislative integrity in deed and in spirit matters not only to the public, but also to the overall ability of the legislature to fulfill its representational responsibilities. Institutionalism is related to a combination of factors that pertain to a legislator's identification with the senate or the house and with the legislature as a political institution. Three of the most important ones are concern, community and continuity.

Concern has to do with a sense of, identification with, or dedication to the legislature, all of which are likely to promote the performance of balancing power and making law. For a legislature to be good, it needs members who care about its well-being and who engage in institution-building activities or at least do not engage in activities that are institutionally harmful or destructive.

Members who are institutionally inclined will defend the legislature against criticism they believe unjust and will discourage colleagues from running against the institution in order to win office. Community encompasses the culture and norms of the legislature. It requires some level of agreement on the need for civility and some manifestation of collegiality.

Informal socializing among legislators helps to build community. In most places such interaction has been in decline in recent years; nonetheless, it remains an element of institutionalism, and one that seems to facilitate the performance of legislative functions.

Continuity is probably as important to institutionalism as anything else. Some continuity of membership and staff not only provides for greater knowledge and skill on the parts of lawmakers, but it promotes institutional values. It takes a while for most new members to identify with and develop concern for the legislature as an institution that merits their support. Continuity does not require extremely low turnover of membership, but only that some members serve for a decent period of time.

By requiring that everyone turn over with relatively brief regularity and by discouraging legislators from identifying with an institution they are passing through, term limits run counter to institutional continuity. The 18 states that currently limit terms are at a disadvantage when it comes to having a good legislature. This model of the good legislature is based on three principal legislative functions-balancing power, representing constituencies and lawmaking.

The factors that facilitate performance of these functions are capacity and institutionalism. Some might suggest a different model, but on the basis of what I have read and observed of legislatures, I think this is as good as any place to start thinking about what makes a legislature good. It will not be easy to bring to life the categories discussed here; it is virtually impossible to measure the several dimensions of the good legislature and to rank the legislatures of the 50 states on goodness.

What is most measurable is probably least significant and what is probably most significant is least measurable. Uprooting a legislature from the political culture of its state cannot be done. What serves well in Vermont might not serve well in California, and vice versa; and what serves well in Iowa might not serve well in Florida, and vice versa.

Comparing legislatures across states is tricky business; giving legislatures numerical scores is impossible business. But even if measurement is beyond our ability, it is about time that we figure out roughly what a good legislature is and roughly how well our own legislature is measuring up. Alan Rosenthal comments that most of his criteria for a good legislature cannot be easily measured, and they are certainly subjective.

But that shouldn't stop you from trying to evaluate how good your legislature is. Give your legislature a grade on each of the following questions. Does your legislature initiate and enact its own legislation and make independent decisions about the state budget?

Are the numbers of women, African Americans and Hispanics in your legislature reasonably reflective of the population of your state? Do the members of your legislature provide effective constituent service including responses to requests for information, casework, local projects and public expenditures?

Do citizens and groups in your state have ready access to information on agendas and proceedings of the legislature? Does your legislature provide effective civic education for the public of all age levels about representative democracy, the legislative institution and the lawmaking process? Does your legislature allow effective participation and input from citizens and organized groups in lawmaking decisions? Is there a reasonable level of internal democracy within your chamber?

Please visit Destination Greater Victoria for more information. Toggle navigation Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Visiting the Legislature Advanced Search. Visiting the Legislature. Welcome Message Welcome to the Parliament Buildings, home to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia where elected representatives — called Members of the Legislative Assembly or MLAs — meet to shape the future of the province by debating and passing the laws that govern British Columbia. What to Do While You're Here.

Dine in the Parliamentary Dining Room We are thrilled to announce that in conjunction with all public health guidelines, our seated dining services resume beginning Tuesday, October 20, Book the Grounds The grounds of the Parliament Buildings are available for use for a wide variety of non-commercial events and performances.

Building Status and Emergency Information In the event of an emergency, or change to status of the Parliament Buildings, visitors can find updated information to provide assistance. Attend an Event Areas of the Legislative Precinct grounds are used for events such as band and choir performances on the front steps, photographs on the Library steps, and public events on the front lawns.

Advanced Close. If the full committee votes to approve the bill, it is reported to the floor of the House or Senate, and the majority party leadership decides when to place the bill on the calendar for consideration. If a bill is particularly pressing, it may be considered right away. Others may wait for months or never be scheduled at all. When the bill comes up for consideration, the House has a very structured debate process.

Each member who wishes to speak only has a few minutes, and the number and kind of amendments are usually limited. In the Senate, debate on most bills is unlimited — Senators may speak to issues other than the bill under consideration during their speeches, and any amendment can be introduced. Senators can use this to filibuster bills under consideration, a procedure by which a Senator delays a vote on a bill — and by extension its passage — by refusing to stand down.

A supermajority of 60 Senators can break a filibuster by invoking cloture, or the cession of debate on the bill, and forcing a vote. Once debate is over, the votes of a simple majority passes the bill. A bill must pass both houses of Congress before it goes to the President for consideration. Though the Constitution requires that the two bills have the exact same wording, this rarely happens in practice.

To bring the bills into alignment, a Conference Committee is convened, consisting of members from both chambers. The members of the committee produce a conference report, intended as the final version of the bill.

Each chamber then votes again to approve the conference report. Depending on where the bill originated, the final text is then enrolled by either the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate, and presented to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate for their signatures. The bill is then sent to the President. When receiving a bill from Congress, the President has several options. If the President agrees substantially with the bill, he or she may sign it into law, and the bill is then printed in the Statutes at Large.

If the President believes the law to be bad policy, he may veto it and send it back to Congress. Congress may override the veto with a two-thirds vote of each chamber, at which point the bill becomes law and is printed. There are two other options that the President may exercise. If Congress is in session and the President takes no action within 10 days, the bill becomes law. If Congress adjourns before 10 days are up and the President takes no action, then the bill dies and Congress may not vote to override.

This is called a pocket veto, and if Congress still wants to pass the legislation, they must begin the entire process anew. Congress, as one of the three coequal branches of government, is ascribed significant powers by the Constitution. All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, meaning that it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws. Executive Branch agencies issue regulations with the full force of law, but these are only under the authority of laws enacted by Congress.