The editorial boards of both the Herald and the Globe are calling on the Legislature to repeal a misguided 1989 law that revokes the driver’s license of anyone who is convicted of a drug offense and imposes a $500 fee to reinstate a license after the suspension time (one to five years) has been served. The law was conceived in the fond hope that it would deter drug use. Thirty years later, we know that it doesn’t, and what’s worse, it steers those with drug convictions back toward recidivism by adding to the re-entry obstacles they face.
Last September the Senate passed a bill to repeal the law, and in January the House approved part of that bill. Both editorial boards greatly prefer the Senate version. The Senate repealed the license suspension law in its entirely. The House, on the other hand, kept the license suspension law for some drug trafficking crimes — it adopted an amendment to that effect that had been filed by a group of seven Republican representatives. One of those Republican representatives, State Rep. James Lyons of Andover, told the Globe that license suspensions should continue to be imposed on “thugs who are selling drugs to our family members.” The Herald, often a Lyons fan, parted ways with him on this issue and urged the House to agree to a complete repeal.
For those not familiar with Rep. Lyons, he’s the Massachusetts chairman of the Cruz for President Committee and his legislative priorities include reducing the state income and sales taxes. A member of the minority party, he’s also a frequent critic of the practice of lawmaking by backroom deal outside of public view.
You may be curious how Rep Lyons and his colleagues succeeded in keeping a portion of the license suspension law in place. It has something to do with lawmaking by backroom deal outside of public view.
The morning of January 6, Speaker DeLeo expressed support for the proposed repeal at a press briefing. The House took up the bill around 3 o’clock that day. Four amendments were pending, all of them filed by Republican Representatives. One of the amendments was defeated on a voice vote without debate. Then the House stood in recess.
Legislative action in the House is punctuated by recesses, some brief and some lengthy. During the lengthier recesses, House members often return to their offices to tend to other business. When the House returns from a recess, often the first order of business is a roll call vote to ensure that a quorum is present. Often, but not always, and not in this case.
After a half hour or so of a recess of indefinite length, the presiding officer (Rep. Paul Donato of Medford) called the House to order, but he didn’t ask for a quorum call. Instead he announced that an amendment was pending and called on the Clerk to read it. As the Clerk was beginning to read the amendment, Donato instructed him to dispense with the reading of the remainder of the amendment, then called for a voice vote, pronounced that the yeas had prevailed over the nays and that the amendment had been adopted. It all took about a minute. No one spoke in favor of the amendment or in opposition to it. After the vote, a House member requested a quorum call and Rep. Donato instructed the court officers to summon the members.
Thus, the GOP amendment to keep the license suspension law in place for some crimes was adopted (after some very minor tweaking — and definitely outside of public view). The Republican minority got its way merely by threatening to debate the policy merits (if any) of its position. The Democratic majority was spared both a roll call vote and the need to bestir itself to counter whatever the GOP might have had to say.
Sometimes this kind of opacity peeves Rep. Lyons. But less often than you might think — and certainly not in this case.