Recently in the Senate an attempt to get money for 9/11 rescue workers was filibustered. My question here is that quote in the title: “Harry Reid had to switch his vote for arcane procedural reasons” (from here).
The article gives no other info on that and my brief attempt to Google for an answer resulted in no explanation and I find the idea…odd…to say the least.
Does anyone here know what the deal was with Reid’s vote?
If he votes no, he has the ability to re-introduce the bill.
If someone votes on the prevailing side of a roll call vote, they are allowed to make a motion to reconsider the vote at a later date.
Had Reid voted with other Democrats, he would be on the losing side, and unable to bring the matter up for another vote.
Weird rule but I suppose they have their reasons.
The reason for the rule is that otherwise the losing side would be able to get the decision reconsidered. But why get the decision reconsidered if no one has changed their mind? You need at least one person who voted “Yes” to have changed their mind and to now want to vote “No” if the decision is going to be reversed.
As a WTC recovery worker, all I can say is, “thanks, again, my elected representatives. Why does my ass hurt? Oh, it’s that thing you jammed in there again.”
[sigh] I wish it were possible to elect someone from either party who legislated on logic…
Fair enough but, as we can see here, the intention of the rule is trivial to sidestep so why even bother?