By The Associated Press
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. January 21, 2024.
Editorial: Start negotiating
Earlier this session it appeared the Wisconsin Legislature had come around on the concept of medical marijuana. It’s something that is overwhelmingly favored by Wisconsin residents, and the public support isn’t fading.
Legislative support? That may be a different question. Now we have a standoff between Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu.
Vos supports a proposal he said was the result of “months and months of negotiations” which includes state-run dispensaries for medical marijuana. He says it has the votes to pass.
LeMahieu called the dispensaries a “nonstarter,” vowing state-owned facilities are a dealbreaker in advancing any legislation to a Senate vote.
Both Vos and LeMahieu are Republicans and the party has strong control over the Legislature. This isn’t an inter-party dispute between Republicans and Democrats. In fact, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers appears prepared to sign the bill despite the fact it falls far short of what he has publicly called for.
Our message to the Republican leadership is simple: Guys, don’t muck this up.
Wisconsin is already an outlier compared to the rest of the nation on this issue. Some 38 states allow medical marijuana. That’s three-quarters of the country. That, interestingly, is the same high bar required for passage of a Constitutional amendment.
We’re not suggesting such an amendment here. We’re referencing that process only to display how far out of synch Wisconsin is right now with the rest of the states.
But being out of step with the other states on an issue like this isn’t necessarily a problem for politicians. Being out of step with constituents is another matter, and the legislators blocking bills along these lines are definitely in that territory.
It’s tempting to see this standoff as yet another instance of politicians drawing a line in the sand and saying “If I don’t get everything I want, nobody gets anything.” We’re not sure it goes to quite that length, but it’s uncomfortably close to such a stance.
This isn’t, at least publicly, negotiation. It’s not even really a discussion. It’s two powerful figures setting forth their positions with little indication they’re willing to budge.
It’s not the way students are taught government works, either. In those lessons, one side of the legislature passes a bill, sending it to the other. That bill is debated, possibly amended, and voted on. If the bill is unchanged and passes, it goes to the executive for a signature or veto. If an amended version passes the two bodies try to hammer out an agreement and, if one is reached, that new bill is sent to both sides for a vote. If the bill is approved on one side but not the other, in either scenario, it’s dead.
Nowhere in those classroom lessons was there a suggestion that good government depends on the whims of a single person, or that both sides have to approve of a bill before it can be presented by either chamber.
We would suggest the question Vos and LeMahieu should be asking is not whether the dispensaries should be state-owned and run. It’s whether they value being seen as officials who are capable of behaving as if they’re capable of leading. Emphasizing an all-or-nothing approach fails that test.
Our system of government inevitably leads to some legislative leaders occupying powerful positions. That’s built in. But when those people lose sight of the very concept of compromise, the system ceases to function well. We’ve seen that in ongoing fighting between parties. We don’t need to see it expand to preventing the parties themselves from functioning.
