by Gongwer News Service
July 3, 2008

Just before 2 a.m. on Saturday, June 28, judgment was delivered in the Senate.

Judgment, legislative judgment, is a pretty rare sight in the Capitol, so that it occurred at all was something to note. Also notable was its lack of relative severity, given the “offense” for which it was being meted out. But the punishment that was executed, Senate GOP officials said, reflects the new realities of caucus politics in the age of term limits.

By way of background, more than a week before the judgment was dropped, something else as rare in legislative politics had occurred: a procedural coup d’etat against the majority Republicans. Sen. Bruce Patterson (R-Canton), upset that the legislature had not enacted bills changing Michigan’s annexation procedures (in order to block a controversial annexation attempt in his district), had joined with Democrats to try to move several bills. One bill dealt with the 2004 Supreme Court decision that changed the definition of bodily injury in automotive accidents (the bill the Democrats wanted), the other two bills dealt with annexation (the bills Mr. Patterson wanted). The group was able to pull the bills out of committee and into position for passage because two Republicans on the panel were out of state and a third was at a meeting out of the chamber.

As a revolt, it didn’t get very far. The Democrats and Mr. Patterson formed a majority to carry basic procedural issues, but they lacked the number needed to actually pass the bills in question. So the bills were moved into position to be voted on, but no vote was ever taken on them. In fact, when Republicans were restored to relative strength they simply shipped the bills back to committee.

Immediately upon the end of the mini-revolt the question turned to repercussions, and on whom the repercussions would be against and in what form. There seemed no question that something would be done against Mr. Patterson. He had, after all, played along with the Democrats and voted against his caucus leader on procedural issues (in the 1980s then-House Speaker Bobby Crim nearly resigned when some of his Democratic lawmakers voted against him on procedural issues).

So the waiting and wondering began. Some Republican advisors suggested the caucus do nothing. After all, they had left the field open by having two members out of state; the Democrats simply took advantage of that fact. Were the circumstances reversed, the GOP would have done the same thing, they said. Better to accept this as a hard lesson and make sure it did not happen again.

That sagacious counsel, however, came up against the more furious tone of others — mostly younger staff members — within the caucus. They wanted blood, lots of it, and the more publicly shed the better. Think of what John Engler would have done, or Dick Posthumus, they said.

So when the hammer came, it tapped rather than pounded. Most of the punishment was directed at Democrats, with leader Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) pulled from two committees and Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) pulled from one panel.

Mr. Patterson was removed from one committee and demoted in a second.

Then to further compound matters, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) announced a new committee to deal with hunting and fishing and named Democrat Sen. Jim Barcia (D-Bay City) as the chair. Democrats were baffled by the move. Mr. Bishop’s aides said it was aimed at showing a conciliatory hand.

The mildness of the reaction surprised outsiders. Mr. Patterson was not stripped of his committee chair, he did not lose staff. Democrats did not lose staff (some of their bills were shipped back to committee, but none that the Senate had planned on passing anytime soon). Where was the outrage? Where was the pain? The overall action was so mild that Democrats were uncertain they would react, or at least react right away.

One widely read political blog even criticized the reaction for lacking requisite sternness and nerve. If anything got Senate members and staff — especially those in Bishop’s office — angry, it was that blog.

Times are different now than when Mr. Engler was majority leader, they said. In an era of term limits, when lawmakers expect a more cooperative and consultative tone, bringing down the hammer is not wise.

Mr. Bishop wanted to quell the dissension, not increase it, officials said. He wanted everyone back on the team, not shunned and likely to bolt again, they said.

We are in a time of a kinder and gentler Senate, they said.

Yet, if another coup attempt were attempted or more members bolt from the party on procedural issues, then one could expect more severe punishments. Of course, should there be more revolts, others pointed out, Mr. Bishop may have to worry a bit himself that he is the next target.

For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.