The following story has gotten almost zero national attention. We'll explain why below, but first, here's some important context. Earlier this year, the Democrats who dominate Washington State politics decided they wanted minority Republicans to have even fewer powers than they already did, so they changed a 132-year-old rule in the lower legislative chamber. Previously, it took a super-majority vote to cut off debate on legislation; as of January -- and after more than a century of precedent -- the threshold was lowered to a simple majority. Democrats pretended this was putting an end to 'the filibuster,' which was actually not an available tool at all in the House. This was a power grab, pure and simple, in order to allow the ruling party in a one-party state to railroad through their agenda at an even faster clip, while sidestepping inconvenient debate and disagreement that they didn't want to endure, for political reasons. Here's how local commentator Jason Rantz summarized the move at the time, which received little scrutiny from the state-level press, and none from their national counterparts:
Washington Democrats changed a 132-year-old House rule that guaranteed a free and open debate on the floor. Now, in the House, Democrats have complete and total control to stop any debate before House Republicans even speak. In a party-line vote, Democrats lowered the supermajority threshold to end debate on a bill to just the majority, which Democrats have. They conducted the vote on a Friday to avoid media coverage of this deeply concerning move. The supermajority rule was intended to force lawmakers to actually debate controversial bills, allowing members three minutes to speak. However, House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon defended the change by claiming that Republicans “filibuster” bills that have total Democratic support. The problem with his claim? There is no filibuster mechanism in the House...[Democrats] complain that House Republicans use their three minutes to sometimes reiterate points previously made.
After this abuse of power and stripping of minority rights, Washington's House Democrats haven't actually used their newly self-assigned authority -- until now. They did so in order to end debate over their gutting of a parents' rights law. This was exactly the sort of scenario that motivated Democrats to change the rules:
Democrats say the bill they approved is needed to clarify parts of a citizen initiative that the Legislature passed last year and to align it with other state and federal laws. Republicans frame the effort as a strategy to gut the earlier measure, which lays out certain rights for the parents of public school students. The bill passed on a 56-39 vote, with one Democrat joining Republicans to oppose the bill. Democrats at one point invoked a rule to halt debate on amendments, which sped up proceedings but also blocked Republicans from voicing concerns...Some of the biggest changes Senate Bill 5181 would make to the law passed last year are around parents’ access to their children’s medical records, including for mental health counseling. It would remove the rights of parents to receive prior notification when medical services are being offered to their child, except where emergency medical treatment is required. The same goes for notifications about when a school has arranged directly or indirectly for medical treatment that results in follow-up care outside normal school hours...
The bill also removes language from the existing parental rights law that would make medical and mental health records available to a child’s parents...Republicans blasted Democrats for cutting off debate. Earlier in the session, Democrats changed the House rules so they could do this with the support of a simple majority rather than two-thirds of members...Failed amendments included ones calling for parents to get prior notification when medical services are being offered to their child, to receive medical records, including for mental health counseling, for children under 12, and to remove the emergency clause that would allow the bill to take effect immediately and prevent it from facing a potential voter referendum.
A voter referendum forced Democrats to pass a parental rights law last year. Democrats decided they didn't like being bossed around by the voters, so they've made major changes to their own brand new law, and they've done so while prematurely ending debate on the matter, triggering their own change to a 132-year-old legislative rule to do so. Furthermore, they slapped an "emergency" label on this action, which prevents voters from overruling what they're doing:
Washington Democrats first invoked the rule to end debate on an amendment removing the “emergency clause.” Democrats added the clause because it would prevent voters from undoing the legislation via a referendum. It was added because the Parents’ Bill of Rights became legislation precisely because voters demanded it via Initiative 2081 and would have passed it as an initiative. Democrats didn’t care what parents thought when they pretended to support the legislation; they certainly don’t care that voters don’t want them to gut the legislation.
Permanently altering their own parental rights bill from last year (which voters effectively strong-armed them into passing via the popular referendum process) is an "emergency," you see, which renders the subject ineligible for reversal by a vote of the citizens. And Democrats halted debate over this "emergency" move, using their power-grab rule change that overturned more than 13 decades of precedent. Can you imagine if a Republican legislature were engaged in this conduct, perhaps to restrict abortion, while taking that issue off the table for a possible plebiscite, and doing all of it via a norms-shattering rule change? Do you think the national media might cover it aggressively, perhaps as an 'attack on democracy,' while the organized Left marched in the streets and disrupted legislative proceedings?
Instead, we have silence. Because the media is comprised of leftists who side with Democrats and aren't remotely offended by anti-democratic overreach that serves the larger cause. Blue state Democrats only do this sort of thing if they're secure in the knowledge that there will be little-to-no 'truth to power' pushback from their partisan allies in the fourth estate, who usually do a lot of performative pearl-clutching about "democracy." Exceptions apply, obviously, and Democrats are broadly correct in their cynical calculus. I'll leave you with my conversation with Rantz about these developments:
