Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1932-03-17
LAWMAKERS
SCORE SHEET
Record of House Members,
Minnesota Legislature
is Tabu1ated.
Only the More Important
Roll Calls of 1881 Session
are Considered.

Geo. w. Johnson of Duluth. member
of the lower House of the Minnesota
legislature the past four terms. has
prepared a chart showing the voting
record of all House members in the 1881
session for the ASkOv American, and
has also written an explanatory article
bringing out the subjects that We're
Observation-Disclosures bills. The chart
was worked up at the expense of con-
siderable time and effort and will likely
be appreciated by the voters who like
to know how the various members reg
iStered in their vOting.)
By REP. GEORGE w. JOHNSON
This article is review of the legis-
lative activities, 1881 session of the
House of Representative of Mime
sofa. 1t is not story of the legis-
lature because the activities of the
House is quite different from that of
the Senate, inaSmuch as the two bo-
dies are organized differently and
work under different rules. The House
generally starts off with a fight for
presiding officer while the Senate
has one chosen for them-namely the
lieutenant governor. In the last seS-
sion the fight was reversed as the
House members practically unani-
mously elected Oscar SwensOn speak
er while in the Senate a successful
fight was waged to take most of the
presiding officers authority away
from him which amounted to practi-
cally the same as electing a new pre-
siding officer. But this article is on
the House of Representatives, so no
further references will be made of the
Senate or its activities.
There were in all about 100 i'm
portant roll calls at the last session
and in making this summary it was
necessary to tabulate all these roll
calls. Then to determine what the
Farmer-LabOr viewpoint was on each
bill it was necessary to find some
measuring stick" That is: How
would it be determined what the
Farmer-Labor opinion was on each
roll call? The fairest way to all
should be used, so it was decided that
the way the majority of House men,
bers elected by FarmerLabOr support
voted on each roll call, would be the
Farmer-LabOr expression on those 100
roll calls. Likewise, the way the ma
jority of the members voted who were
not elected by FarmerLabor support
would be the opinion of the anti-ad-
ministratiOn on each of the one hun
dred rolls calls that are used in this
tabulatiOn.
Differ on 80 Roll Calls.
OF the 100 roll calls it was found
that 80 of them showed a difference
of OpiniOn-that iS-where the ma
jority Farmer-LabOr group voted
yes" the anti-administratiOn group
voted mo" and vice versa. In scoring
the record of each member it was
necessary to check each members vot
ing record against this group vote.
The score given the member was the
number of times the member agreed
with this vote, plus the number of
times the member agreed with the
Farmer-LabOr vote on the aforemen-
toned 80 rolls calls. Thus, taking
the first member on the roll, Mr..
| Adams as an example. Mr.. Adams
agreed with the Farmer-Labor group
vote 81 times and he agreed with the
Farmer-Labor group on the 80 votes
ten times. His total score therefore is
81. All members were scored by this
method. 1t is interesting to review
briefly the vote on most of the 100
bills and to see how the two groups,
differed on the various proposals.
The first difference arose when Mr..
| Starkey moved to delay the adoption
of the permanent rules of the House.
The Farmer-Labor group supported
him but the other group opposed it..
The same result appears on the two,
proposals regarding the hiring of
House employees. There was fight
on the proposal to increase the high
way patrol from 35 men to 100 men,
but the majority of each group sup
ported this measure. The much dis
cussed Gag law BILL" otherwise
known as limiting the freedom of the
press was up for repeal. The Farmer
Labor group said "yes," the other
group said mo-" The increase in
iron ore tax was similarly disposed
of. Restricting immigration met with
approval of both factions. The bill to
elect members of the legislature I'M
der party designation was opposed by
both groups.
There is no attempt to group the
bills according to subject matter but
this review takes them up in about
the order in which they came up for
consideration in the House.
Differences are Shown.
The water power bill was supported
by the Farmer-Labor group and was
opposed by the other group. The Hib-
bling vacation bill was opposed by
both factions. The running at large
Continued on Page 81