This shouldn't be noteworthy, but it is: Bill that failed in House Committee up for reconsideration

When House Bill 5643 failed in committee on a 7-4 vote, my jaw dropped, because bills up for a committee vote are almost never voted down.

Last Tuesday, I was in the House Judiciary Committee meeting for unrelated bills, when H5643 was brought up to be voted on.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Gregory Constantino on behalf of the Department of Public Safety, “would amend the law relating to casino crimes to be consistent with the advent of iGaming and the relevant age restrictions to participate in iGaming.”

“The short, non-lawyer version,” said Committee Chair Robert Craven, was that “You’ve got to make sure the kids don’t gamble, because you have to be 21 to gamble.”

Committee votes are perfunctory. No bill (with perhaps one exception on June 16, 2016) voted on by a committee is expected not to pass. The votes are so pro forma, I wasn’t paying attention at all, to be honest, until Representative Cheri Cruz spoke up.

“I want to comment on this bill,” said Representative Cruz. “I’m very concerned. In this committee, we looked at Second Look, thinking about the age of 18-21, going to this length to criminalize [with] up to a year in prison and a $1000 fine, when I know they can go into a casino? Right now, we know that smoking and alcohol are status offenses, not criminal offenses, but here we’re jumping right to criminalization, and I’m very concerned about it.

“I know the ACLU and others have raised concerns,” continued Representative Cruz, “I know we’ve done great work to reverse this State House prison-pipeline, but unfortunately, this targets 18 to 21-year-olds and fast-tracks them to prison. I just wanted to share my concerns about this and why I’ll vote no.”

“It’s understandable,” said Chair Craven. “I would say, if I give any defense of the bill, that as far as this punishment is concerned, there can’t be a misdemeanor that can’t have up to a year in prison and up to a $1000 fine.

“We did something a couple of years ago to help get people sober and off drugs by creating two-year misdemeanors, which allowed certain crimes of possession of drugs to be prosecuted with misdemeanor-type penalties. And to help with issues like immigration, etc. That’s the reason this bill has that.

“Should it be criminalized at all?” asked Chair Craven rhetorically. “It could be on a second or third offense. I could have seen that as a better way of going about it. A person would have to do it twice, and maybe on the second time, he didn’t get the message. I agree. I understand.”

“We know all the barriers there are for people with criminal records,” said Representative Cruz. “To start as an 18-21 year-old in that manner - whether they went to prison or not, a record is a record. It limits them from going to college, housing, and many other things. While I’ll vote no, I think we are going in the wrong direction with this one, especially for our young people.”

“Thanks,” said Chair Craven.

"I share Representative Cruz’s concerns about H5643," said Representative Edie Ajello. "I think we’re sending a very confusing message to people under 21 when we welcome them, evidently, into Lincoln and Tiverton, but say you can’t gamble online. I don’t think it makes any sense. An 18-year-old can do all sorts of things. I don’t think this makes sense, and it sends two messages: Come in and gamble, but don’t do it online. It doesn’t make sense to me, so I’ll vote no."

“I just want to clarify,” said Representative Cruz, “18-year-olds, as Rep Ajello said, can go into the casino and gamble. But if they go on their phone to do the same thing they can do in person, we will criminalize it. It doesn’t seem fair at all. It will lead to confusion. As a 19 or 20-year-old, I would also question it. I can go in and gamble right through this door. Why can’t I stand outside the door and be on my phone to do the same activity? And then to criminalize it? For those reasons, I’ll be respectfully voting no.”

“Any other questions?” asked Chair Craven. “Is there a motion for passage?”

There was a long pause. Then, Representative Arthur Corvese said, “So moved.”

The vote:

• Representative Craven Y

• Representative McEntee Y

• Representative Knight N

• Representative Ajello N

• Representative Caldwell Y

• Representative Casimiro N

• Representative Cruz N

• Representative Corvese Y

• Representative Felix N

• Representative Hopkins N

• Representative Place N

The bill failed on a 4-7 bipartisan vote.

“The bill is defeated,” said the committee clerk.

“Okay,” said Chair Craven. “We’ll move on.”

My jaw dropped because bills up for a committee vote are almost never voted down.

My understanding was that when a bill is defeated in committee or dies while held for further study, that’s it. The bill will not be heard again until the next legislative session. But H5643 is up for reconsideration at tomorrow’s Judiciary Committee hearing:

How does this happen? I wrote to Larry Berman, House Director of Communications, to find out.

It turns out that under the House Rules, [Rule 12 (f) on Page 9], committee members may move for reconsideration of any vote taken as long as the bill subject to the vote remains in possession of the committee and a member voting in the majority makes the motion. Here’s the language:

(f) Committee Chairs shall bring reports of committee actions to the floor no later than two (2) weeks following the committee votes thereon, provided that this shall not apply to the Committee on Finance, nor shall it apply to bills being held for further study under subdivision 5 (e)(v). A committee member may move reconsideration of any vote taken under Rule 12(e)(i)-(iv) so long as the bill or resolution which was the subject of the vote remains in the possession of the committee and that the motion is made by a member voting in the majority. A motion to reconsider in committee shall not be debated.

“It is our understanding,” said Director Berman, “that several members who voted in the majority will support a motion to reconsider. In addition, at least two members who missed the vote indicated they would like the opportunity to participate. When the members first heard the bill, none of them raised concerns, and when Representative Cruz raised issues in the second hearing, there was conflicting information. Now, some members who voted against it have asked for reconsideration.”

“So that means Representative[s] Knight, Ajello, Casimiro, Cruz, Felix, Hopkins, or Place asked for the bill to be reconsidered,” I said.

“Correct,” said Director Berman.

“Do you know which of these did so?” I asked.

Director Berman did not tell me which Representative[s] asked for reconsideration.

I asked if Speaker of the House Joseph Shekarchi and Majority Leader Christopher Blazejewski would attend the meeting in their ex officio capacity, which allows them to sit on and vote in any House committee.

“I am unaware that the Speaker and Majority Leader will be participating in the vote,” said Director Berman.

Speaker Shekarchi recently described the process of passing a bill in the House. “Eighteen senior staff sit around a table and review every scrap of evidence - testimony and exhibit letters - that’s brought before us on any given issue before we feel comfortable that the problem has had a public vetting. Then we move it through the House process, where it gets another public hearing, and then it gets voted on by the committee. Then it goes to the floor, and we ship it off to the Senate, and they go through the same process over there. It ends in the governor’s hands. Sometimes, the governor signs things; sometimes, he lets them become law without signing them; sometimes, he vetoes them. That’s our process, so I encourage you to be involved.”

Speaker Shekarchi spoke on the House committee process at another recent event, saying, “Everything’s always on the table. Nothing is prejudged. I know people say [decisions are] all made at the top [but] that’s not the way I operate. I decentralized much of this and made the committee process honest and fair.”

“...believe it or not, we look at every piece of testimony,” said Speaker Shekarchi at yet another event. “I sit down with staff, senior leadership, and the chairs of the committees, and they give us input. I sit down with everybody and ask, Who was it for? Who was against it? What were the issues? The beautiful thing about the House of Representatives is that we videotape everything. When you send an email, we post it online so we can go back and look at a hearing and see who was for it, who was against it, why, and how come. All that will go into effect, and we’ll look at it.”

After all this, the only thing that is clear is that H5643 will be passed out of committee tomorrow.