The Davenport Iowa Quad City Times had a story last Friday about the new 25-25 split in the Iowa Senate, and looked at how other states, including Indiana, had handled such a situation. Some quotes:
If “gridlock” aptly described the Iowa General Assembly for the last few litigious years, how can we begin to label the 25-25 partisan split Iowa voters handed to the state Senate?Here is the link to the National Conference paper, "Legislative Deadlock: What if It Happens to You?" This paper contains much useful information. However, that about Indiana appears to be out-of-date. Here is what it says:How about, “opportunity?” In the past couple of sessions, Iowa Republicans leveraged a slim legislative majority to muscle through agendas that inevitably collided head-on with a Democratic governor. In two critical cases, the collision wound up before the Iowa Supreme Court. In both cases, the court forced the kind of compromise the Republican majority and Democrat governor should have worked out in the first place, but couldn’t.
Today, in its best light, the split Senate forces compromise to begin now. Not after a court order. Now. Committee leadership has to be settled now. The Senate presidency has to be settled now. Debate protocol? Settle it now. * * *
The National Conference of State Legislatures has trod this difficult path so many times, it developed a primer, entitled, “Legislative Deadlock: What if It Happens to You?” This useful guide draws from nearly 40 years of experience from 27 General Assemblies that faced the same problem. Advice includes short term solutions, like Wyoming’s decision to use a coin toss to break stalemates, to long-term plans, such as in Indiana, where the legislature added a seat to eliminate the possibility of an evenly numbered split.
After experiencing a partisan split in 1989, the Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation to make sure the House "wouldn't again be hindered by a tie." The House will change to an odd number of members when it redistricts following the 2000 census. Until then, the Indiana statutes provide that the speaker and the principal clerk be chosen by the members of the House affiliated with either the governor's political party or the party of the secretary of state if the governor was not up for election. The law was used to organize the House when it deadlocked in 1996.And here is the current Indiana law. First, IC 2-2.1-1-7.5, passed in 1995, remains in effect. It provides that, in the event of a 50-50 split:
c) The speaker of the house of representatives and the principal clerk of the house of representatives shall be elected by the members of the house of representatives affiliated with the political party whose:Second, here, at IC 2-1-10, is the current House districting plan, for 100 districts. Posted by Marcia Oddi at November 7, 2004 10:32 AM(1) candidate was elected governor at the previous general election; or
(2) candidate