To Read or Not to Read?

If you've ever watched the frenzied final days of a legislative session, then you know that rank-and-file lawmakers don't always know what's in the bills they vote on. Sometimes, it's unavoidable. Sometimes it's by design. Either way, Oklahoma state Representative Odilia Dank argues it's a constitutional violation. Dank, a Republican, is suing the House Democratic leadership for its failure to read bills in public before final passage, which she contends is mandated by Article V of the state constitution. The matter is currently before the state Supreme Court.

"There were reasons the framers chose that provision. It's for us to make informed decisions," says Dank. "I'm not asking the court to declare laws we passed already as unconstitutional. I just feel it would not hurt anything if we slowed things down and scrutinized things more closely."

Seventeen other states have similar bill-reading requirements. But that hasn't made the situation any clearer. The House leadership argues that separation of powers doctrine precludes the court from ruling in a legislative procedural matter. It's also uncertain whether bills need to be "publicly" read at length. And according to an opinion issued by the state attorney general's office last year, legislative leaders have the option of either reading the bills aloud or providing printed copies to lawmakers prior to voting on final passage.

In any case, Dank says she and her colleagues simply deserve more time to consider what they are voting on, particularly in the closing hours of a session. "You might get 48 bills--granted, some of which may be short--on a Thursday and 48 bills on a Friday," she says. "In the last two days, anything goes."