Vetoed Show Up for Work Act

[greymc]

CONGRESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
​

---

A BILL TO

AMEND THE CONSTITUTION




​

---

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:


​

PART I — PRELIMINARIES

1. Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the ‘Show Up for Work Act’

(2) This Act shall be enacted when either the 40th House of Representatives or Senate have been called to order.

(3) This Act has been authored by Speaker _GreyMC.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Deputy Speaker HatManMC and Deputy President of the Senate ElegantAlly.

(5) This Act amends the Constitution

(6) This Act shall require a four-fifths majority in both chambers, pursuant to Part VIII, §52 of the Constitution.

2. Reasons and Intent
(1) A democratic government is one that shows up. Having Representatives and Senators not vote on bills is the same as hiring an employee who doesn’t show up for work. They are paid (via UBI) and hired (voted on by the players) to pass laws, aka voting on bills.

(2) An extension on dereliction may seem harsh, but like noted in subsection (1), it is their job to show up. LOAs exist if they cannot show up.

(3) This bill will amend the Constitution to make dereliction happen when a Representative or Senator does not vote on 5 bills or motions. It removes the exception if it fails for quorum, instilling that it is their job to show up for work.

(4) Moreover, now Congressional members will be removed automatically, unless their chamber votes to save them.

PART II - AMENDMENTS

3. Constitution

(1) Part I, §11 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

11. Removal of Congress Members

(1) Representative Removal. A Representative can be removed from Congress early by the relevant presiding officer with the consent of four fifths of their chamber (excluding the individual in question).

(2) Senator Removal. A Senator can be removed from Congress early by the relevant presiding officer with the consent of all members of their chamber (excluding the individual in question).

(3) Removal shall only require a simple majority if the individual in question has committed dereliction of their duties.
(3) Dereliction. If an individual has been found to have committed dereliction of their duties, they shall be removed from their position in Congress within 72 hours of notification by the relevant presiding officer, unless their chamber has moved to keep them as a member by motion passed with a simple majority.

(a) If the motion fails, the individual shall be immediately removed. An individual may not be removed via dereliction if there is a motion to keep them as a member.

(b) Should the motion pass, the individual can still be removed with a motion passed by simple majority of members in their chamber.

(2) Part VIII, §52 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:

52. Dereliction
A Congressional Member will be deemed to have committed dereliction of their duties if they fail to vote on 5 or more bills/motions which fail due to not meeting quorum, or fall below the playtime required to vote in elections. If these offenses occur while the Congressional Member is on Leave of Absence, they will not be deemed to have commited dereliction of their duties. Changing the definition of Dereliction will require four-fifths majority in Congress.
A Congressional Member will receive a dereliction strike for each motion they fail to vote on that had voting open for at least 48 hours. Should the individual be on a Leave of Absence when they fail to vote, they will not receive a dereliction strike. Upon receiving five dereliction strikes, or following below the required playtime to vote in elections, the individual will be deemed to have committed dereliction of their duties, unless the individual is on a Leave of Absence. For the purposes of this section, a motion will also include bills and resolutions. Changing the definition of Dereliction will require a four-fifths majority in Congress.

 

[ameslap]

Nay! I agree that members need to show up for work. But this bill goes too far by turning 5 missed votes into automatic removal, even if Congress is still functioning and a quorum is present. A member of Congress missing a single day without being on LOA now means that they are automatically removed, depending on how many votes were had that day. Show up to work, sure, but how many of us want to be at work 24/7?

Additionally, most motions or bills close when a majority is reached. If a member intended to vote but it was closed before they could... now that's a strike against them.

 

[greymc]

- I understand the concerns with this bill, but there's a reason it's specified that the entire time has to play out. 48 hours are given. If you know something is coming up, or don't have time to read a bill, abstain/go on an LOA.

 

[Kaizered]

- Both sides have valid points that I agree with.

 

[HatManMC]

Genuine question: does this imply that if a motion is closed due to reaching majority, that counts against them? That implies one of the following two things:
1) We have random quorum failures because you weren’t part of the first 6 to reach a motion.
2) We have to keep motions up much longer than necessary to give folks the allowed time to vote.

I think it’s a reasonable idea, and I’m pro strengthening dereliction’s responsibilities. But I fear the motion bit may start a “bad choice road” of quorum failures and prolonged congressional action.

For this reasoning, will be changing from aye to abstain until I can get a proper explanation on the matter.

 

[greymc]

Genuine question: does this imply that if a motion is closed due to reaching majority, that counts against them? That implies one of the following two things:
1) We have random quorum failures because you weren’t part of the first 6 to reach a motion.
2) We have to keep motions up much longer than necessary to give folks the allowed time to vote.

I think it’s a reasonable idea, and I’m pro strengthening dereliction’s responsibilities. But I fear the motion bit may start a “bad choice road” of quorum failures and prolonged congressional action.

For this reasoning, will be changing from aye to abstain until I can get a proper explanation on the matter.

I would assume it's pretty clear that it's only dereliction that applies when a bill was up for the 48 hours. It says given, it doesn't force a bill to be open.

 

[HatManMC]

I would assume it's pretty clear that it's only dereliction that applies when a bill was up for the 48 hours. It says given, it doesn't force a bill to be open.

Yes, but it’s typical practice for a bill or motion to be closed before it’s fully voted on or 48 hours have passed. For example, H-52/39 motion had only 6 votes on it and was preemptively closed. This bill implies that a strike would be given to any member that didn’t vote on that. The way this would likely be resolved is to stop closing motions and bills before 48 hours have passed, which is fairly impractical. I could see doing so for bills, but motions especially would be a complete waste of Congress’s time.

 

[greymc]

Yes, but it’s typical practice for a bill or motion to be closed before it’s fully voted on or 48 hours have passed. For example, H-52/39 motion had only 6 votes on it and was preemptively closed. This bill implies that a strike would be given to any member that didn’t vote on that. The way this would likely be resolved is to stop closing motions and bills before 48 hours have passed, which is fairly impractical. I could see doing so for bills, but motions especially would be a complete waste of Congress’s time.

I'm sorry, but I thought this clause addresses it. If you feel it doesn't please inform me.

(given that voting on those motions was open for the full voting period as defined by their chamber’s standing orders)

 

[HatManMC]

I'm sorry, but I thought this clause addresses it. If you feel it doesn't please inform me.

I interpreted this differently in my reading but now I know what you were going for, apologies and changing vote back.

 

[greymc]

This bill was amended in S-1/40 & H-7/40. Since voting was not up at that time for the Senate, there will be no re-vote.

 

[greymc]

NOTICE: I voted AYE in the House. Voting again will change what the poll says.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Veto

PRESIDENTIAL VETO​

---

The Show Up for Work Act amends §11 and §52 of the Constitution. It replaces the quorum-based definition of dereliction with a strike for every motion, bill or resolution a member fails to vote on where voting stayed open for 48 hours, deems a member derelict at five strikes or on falling below the playtime required to vote, and makes removal automatic within 72 hours of notification by the presiding officer unless the chamber passes a motion to keep the member. It would commence with the 40th Congress.

I agree with the premise. A member who does not vote is not doing the job, and the current definition, which counts only votes that failed for want of quorum, lets a member miss most of a term so long as their colleagues cover for them. Automatic vacation of a seat for non-attendance is not a novel idea, and I would sign a version of it. I cannot sign this one. A constitutional amendment cannot be corrected by the Office of Congressional Affairs. Every gap in it goes to referendum and stays until the next four-fifths vote, and the gaps here are in the mechanism itself.

First

The trigger is discretionary. Removal runs from "notification by the relevant presiding officer", and nothing obliges the presiding officer to notify. The presiding officer therefore chooses which derelict members face removal, and when. The presiding officer also decides, under the Legislative Standards Act, whether a vote closes early or stays open the full 48 hours, and only a vote that stays open the full 48 hours produces a strike. A removal mechanism in the Constitution must be mechanical. Written this way, it is a tool in the hands of whoever holds the chair.

Second

There is no process. The Bill removes a member "found to have committed dereliction" but does not say who finds it, whether the member is told before the finding, or whether they may answer it. The Legislative Standards Act gives a presiding officer facing a motion of no confidence 24 hours to respond. This Bill gives an elected member facing the loss of their seat nothing but the hope that a colleague moves to keep them within 72 hours.

Third

The count never resets. Strikes are not tied to a term, do not expire, and are not cleared when the chamber votes to keep the member. A member who is kept remains derelict on the face of §52 and, on the text, can be notified again the following day. Five missed votes over an entire term, or over several terms if the strikes follow the person, is a far stricter standard than the reasons acknowledge, and the Bill does not say which it means.

Fourth

The text does not hold together where it must. New §11(3)(a) says a member "may not be removed via dereliction if there is a motion to keep them". New §11(3)(b) says a kept member "can still be removed" by simple majority, which is removal via dereliction under another name. §52 reads "following below" where it means "falling below". Section 1(2) commences the Act when "the 40th House of Representatives or Senate" is called to order, but chambers are not numbered separately; Congresses are. Under §51 of the Constitution only the words physically in the document count, and nobody can tidy them afterwards.

The cure is short. Make notification mandatory on the fifth strike and give the member 48 hours to respond before the chamber votes. Reset strikes at the start of each Congress and clear them when a keep motion passes. Say plainly whether the chamber votes to remove or votes to keep, and pick one. Fix the words. I would sign that Bill.

Accordingly, I veto this Bill and return it to Congress.

I thank Speaker _GreyMC for authoring the Bill, and Deputy Speaker HatManMC and Deputy President of the Senate ElegantAlly for co-sponsoring it. The next draft will land on a different desk, but the problem it addresses is real, and I hope it gets there quickly.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the President on 21 September 2026

Theory Fontaine
30th President of the Commonwealth of Redmont​