Assembly Republican Leader Gallagher Demands Answers on Undemocratic End of Session

Monday, California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (Yuba City) demanded answers from the Assembly Rules Committee in the wake of several parliamentary violations that crushed debate and caused chaos at the end of the 2024 legislative session.

As the Globe reported on that final session:

Democrats limited debate on each bill to 30 seconds, which was no actual debate at all. And then, according to a Capitol staffer, the Assembly Speaker cut off their mics even before the 30-seconds was up if they opposed the bill about to be voted on.

The Capitol staffer told the Globe that Democrats were even violating their own rules, which they had illegally passed that night by making new rules on the spot. 

They also cut off Assemblyman Essayli when he made a counter motion pointing out their errors.

“The California Assembly silenced me and the 500k Californians I represent tonight! They would not let me debate or speak. These people are the enemy of democracy!” Essayli Tweeted.

The Globe pointed out, “with 62 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the Assembly (one vacant seat), the dangerous imbalance of one-party rule has lead to Democrats making up the rules as they go, while kicking voters to the curb.”

“This is no laughing matter. This is not representation.”

Assembly Republican Leader Gallagher is appropriately outraged and exasperated with the gross violations the final night of the legislative session, and is demanding the Rules Committee investigate the myriad violations.

“In the final hours of the session, Democrats illegally amended the Assembly’s rules to limit debate on bills to just 30 seconds per person and refused to recognize multiple Republican lawmakers attempting to speak on behalf of their constituents,” Gallagher said.

He wrote a letter to the Chairwoman of Assembly Committee on Rules Vice Blanca Pacheco, and Vice Chairman Devon Mathis. Here is Gallagher’s letter with the receipts:

Dear Chair Pacheco and Vice Chair Mathis:

I write to you today to file a formal complaint over the actions that took place on the Assembly Floor on August 31, 2024, the last day of the 2023-24 legislative session. The last hours of session were more than chaotic. The actions taken by the majority were an assault on open debate. An assault on democracy.

What happened in the final hours of session was a suppression of meaningful debate. The majority rushed through legislation that will have significant impacts on Californians without giving Members the opportunity to fully discuss and debate these bills. This undermines the very essence of our democratic process and disenfranchises the people who elected us to represent them. When the majority resorts to such tactics, it not only erodes trust in the legislative process but also silences the voices of those who seek to bring transparency and accountability to our government.

Specifically, I point to the following actions taken on Saturday, August 31, 2024:

 Illegally amending the Assembly Rules. With approximately 30 minutes left before the midnight deadline to pass legislation the Majority Leader made a motion, passed by the body, to amend Assembly Rule (AR) 108 and limit each Member’s speaking time to 30 seconds per bill, drastically reducing how much time each Member had to debate important legislation.

However, AR 8 provides that “A standing rule of the Assembly may not be amended except by a resolution adopted by an affirmative recorded vote of a majority of the duly elected and qualified Members.” No resolution was adopted to amend AR 108.

Instead, the Speaker pro Tempore allowed the body to vote on an illegal motion made by the Majority Leader to amend AR 108.

In addition, the Majority Leader made the motion without returning to “Motions and Resolutions” and was therefore out of order. The Speaker pro Tempore should nothave allowed the motion to even be made without first returning to Motions and Resolutions.

 Refusing to recognize Republican Caucus Members. Just as egregious, the Speaker pro Tempore refused to even recognize at least two Members of the Republican Caucus: one who had his mic up waiting to speak on a bill, and another whom the Speaker pro Tempore decided he’d had enough of and refused to recognize the rest of the night, calling the Member’s actions “dilatory.” This, despite the fact that the motions, points of order, and appeals raised by the Member up to that point were deemed appropriate enough by the Speaker pro Tempore to be voted on. Quite frankly, his refusal to recognize a Member of the Assembly attempting to exercise his rights is an abuse of power.

In addition, in one instance while I was making my remarks on a bill, the Speaker pro Tempore started my allotted time before my microphone was turned on, interrupted me, and cut me off. When I immediately raised a point of order, he ignored it, again demonstrating an abuse of power.

 Twice failing to vote on a motion to adjourn sine die [Without a date fixed as of an adjournment] the Second Extraordinary Session. After the Speaker pro Tem announced the Assembly was in the Second Extraordinary Session, I made a motion to adjourn sine die. The Speaker pro Tempore refused to allow a vote on this motion and ruled it out of order, even though such motion is always in order. This ruling was unsuccessfully appealed, but it never should have come to that. The Speaker pro Tempore should have followed the Assembly Rules and the motion to adjourn sine die should have come to a vote.

Additionally, the Speaker pro Tempore failed to recognize another Member who wished to adjourn the Second Extraordinary Session sine die. This member raised his microphone to make a substitute motion after the motion to adjourn was made by the Majority Leader. Instead of recognizing the Member, the Speaker pro Tempore adjourned “without objection” and returned to regular Session. This ruling too was unsuccessfully appealed, but again, it never should have come to that. The Speaker pro Tempore should have followed the Assembly Rules by recognizing the Member who wished to make a substitute motion after the motion to adjourn was made, and the substitute motion should been voted on by the body.

 Parliamentary actions used to quash debate. But even that wasn’t enough. Even with debate illegally limited, even with the Speaker pro Tempore failing to recognize the rights of Members to speak on bills, the majority still found ways to limit debate by moving the previous question under the seldom-used AR 87, which allows for debate to be halted on a bill if five Members demand it. At least four times that night the majority resorted to this tactic.

While moving the previous question is a perfectly legal parliamentary maneuver, the fact that the majority had to use it four times within 30 minutes shows just how badly managed the workload was the last week of session. Make no mistake, we had plenty of time to debate and vote on bills. Instead, the Assembly didn’t start until 2:30 p.m. on Saturday, August 31, adjourned early the day before, spent an inordinate amount of time on ceremonies the last two weeks, and had several prolonged periods of inactivity with no clear direction or progress.

Democracy is the cornerstone of our republic. The actions of the Speaker pro Tempore and the majority on the last day of session were anathema to a free society. I am requesting the Rules Committee to investigate the actions above that occurred on August 31, 2024, and for appropriate remediation if rules were found to have been violated. If you have any questions, please contact my office at 916-319-2003.

Sincerely,

James Gallagher, Assembly Republican Leader, 3rd District

Based on Leader Gallagher’s letter, Tweets and news stories by two reporters covering the late night session, and what Capitol staffers told the Globe, an investigation is essential.