Skip to main content

Lame-Duck Sessions

Lame-Duck Sessions
A “lame-duck” session is “when congress (or either chamber) reconvenes in an even-numbered year following the November general elections to consider various items of business. Some lawmakers who return for this session will not be in the next Congress. Hence, they are informally called "lame duck" members participating in a "lame duck" session.” (US Senate). Before the 20th amendment, the members leaving their chamber weren’t bound to their constituents, but they could still use all their powers as if they were still in congress. This created an agency problem or conflicting interests of new and old members of congress. The current form of “lame-duck” sessions occur because of the 20th amendment which reset the dates for when terms of congress end (Adler, 2019). Efforts to reform the original “lame-duck” session didn’t really make any ground with the citizens until into the 20th century. In 1922, Senator George W Norris proposed an idea to eliminate the “short” session and move the opening of congress to early January, in an effort to alleviate the lame-duck session. His proposal was stopped due to Republican leadership in the house, but six congressional sessions later, he succeeded and the 20th amendment was ratified (Adler, 2019). The 20th amendment put an end to the original lame-duck session issue that included problems like fraud, but opened the door for a “contemporary” lame-duck session. Congress is still able to reconvene between the November elections and when the new members were seated in January (Hitt, Lecture September 2019). While many of these lame-duck sessions have ended unfavorably for many citizens, a lot of these sessions have produced positive outcomes, such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. There are some benefits and drawbacks to the “lame-duck” session depending on what side of the debate one is on and who controls the chamber. 
Some examples of problems with these “lame-ducks” are that they can use their powers, like create legislation without fear of any repercussions because their term in Congress is already up. They can also try to pass legislation that will affect or set back the up and coming members if the new members have a majority in the opposing party (Hitt, Lecture September 2019). Lame-ducks have also been accused of fraud. An example of this is the lame-ducks “selling their votes to the president in exchange for executive appointments” (Adler, 2019). 
“Activity During Lame-Duck Sessions 1974-2012,” pictured below, shows that between 1974 and 2012 there has been a lot of activity in these sessions with up to 149 public laws enacted by the lame-duck’s who’s congressional sessions were already expired. 
The graph shown below further explains the length of these lame-duck sessions, as well as some examples of issues they were voting on. In 1998, the house went back into session in order to vote on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and in 2008 both chambers of Congress went back into session for twenty-two days to figure out the countries financial crisis. Whether or not these were positive laws is up for discretion, but there has definitely been a lot of activity during these sessions, raising questions about the necessity of them.
Since the ratification of the 20th amendment, some of Senator George W. Norris’ problems with lame-duck sessions have become relevant again. Many people argue that these “lame-duck” sessions need to be stopped or shortened to keep the previous members of congress from causing problems for the up and coming members, and to ensure the citizens are in favor of the policy outcomes. On the other hand, these sessions can help congress take care of important business such as impeaching a president or trying to remedy a financial crisis while the election results are being finalized.






“Glossary Term: ‘Lame Duck’ Session.” U.S. Senate: Glossary Term | "Lame Duck" Session, 19 Jan. 2018, www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/lame_duck_session.htm.
Desilver, Drew. “How Productive Are Lame Duck Congresses?” Pew Research Center, 2 Dec. 2014, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/02/how-productive-are-lame-duck-congresses/. 

Adler, E. Scott, Jeffrey A. Jenkins, and Charles R. Shipan. 2019. The United States Congress. New York: Norton.

Comments

  1. GraceCSeptember 23, 2019 at 3:46 PM

    I'm personally a fan of the lame duck session because I believe it is the time where politicians can vote on bills without the pressure of constituents. Their fate has been sealed and they are able to vote based off of the trustee model versus delegation, which I think is better because they are more informed about the policies.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insulin cap in Colorado

In the United States, the topic of medication prices has increased substantially, specifically insulin. Insulin is a medication used to treat type one Diabetes which typically costs a thousand dollars or more depending on how much you need, and how much your insurance is willing to pay. Colorado changed this with a bill designed to put a cap on the copay for insulin. The bill HB19-1216 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May of 2019. This bill states that “a carrier that provides coverage for prescription insulin drugs pursuant to the terms of a health coverage plan the carrier offers shall cap the total amount that a covered person is required to pay for a covered prescription insulin drug at an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars per thirty-day supply of insulin, regardless of the amount of type of insulin needed to fill the covered person’s prescription.” This bill will go into effect on January 1st, 2020 and will be overseen by the department of law who will investi...
7 comments
Read more

Gun Control in Colorado

Due to the prevalence of mass shootings in the United States, many states have adapted gun legislation to target the issue. Colorado is no exception. The House Bill 1177 or more commonly known as “the red flag bill” was passed this previous legislative session (Aguilar). The bill allows the court to seize firearms from individuals who are deemed a threat to themselves or to others (Aguilar). This considerable gun legislation is significant for Democrats who have advocated for gun control for years. More importantly, the passing of this bill may once again demonstrate which party has been gaining momentum in Colorado these past few years. Colorado’s legislature has generally sided to the left in recent times (Strayer 141). This is a significant shift from the more Republican leaning legislature that Colorado was previously used to (Strayer 141). Furthermore, Colorado’s House Bill 1177 is in no way addressing the issue in a very unique way. Figure 1 below demonstrates nationwide...
6 comments
Read more

TABOR and Colorado Politics Post-CC

       One of the more contentious topics within Colorado politics is budgeting and funding for projects, education, and revenue intake. This came to a head in this year's election with Proposition CC. Despite failing at the ballot box, the Democratic Party is pushing ahead with the 2020 legislative agenda that includes drafts to eliminate the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights or amend it to ensure more accessible revenue for the party's policy objectives. What is critical to the debate is the increasing partisan divide within Colorado, the historical shift from Republican control to Democrat trifectas in state government, and the institutional mechanisms that have hampered strategy for the dominant party. Also, in the mix are interest groups that influence local politics which can help uncover party strategy from another perspective.        The Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI) a left-leaning think tank, is a key player in this battle, authoring s everal...
6 comments
Read more