Senate offices intentionally lying about Lynching Vote last night

READ THIS PLEASE, I EXPLAIN HOW VOTES WORK IN THE SENATE

This is getting very interesting. I've gotten feedback from a number of friends and contacts who have called the Senate offices of the members who did NOT co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution. They're lying to you folks, well, lying in the "intentionally misleading" way.

First, a bit of background to anyone who's new. The Senate voted late last night to pass a resolution apologizing for years of failure to pass anti-lynching legislation. The legislation was held up a LONG time, year ago of course, because of southern Senators filibustering it. Well, ABC reported last night that the apology had to be passed late at night, and they weren't going to hold an actualy roll call vote (the kind where you see how your Senator voted), because a number of Senators didn't support the apology! That led me to write about it here on my blog, and other blogs also joined in asking who exactly isn't opposed to lynching?

That's brings us to day. The Senate offices are now intentionally misleading people about where their bosses stood on this legislation.

Here's what they're saying:

1. My boss couldn't vote for the resolution because he was out of town last night.

2. My boss couldn't vote for the resolution because it was a voice vote - meaning, there was no recorded vote of who was for it or against it - it was simple a "all those in favor say 'aye', all those opposed say 'no'" kind of vote. And no one keeps a written record of the ayes and nos.

3. What do you mean my boss didn't support the resolution, it passed unanimously?!

All of those are cute, and they're also intentionally meant to mislead you.

The vote last night was a voice vote. That means all you need is one guy in the Senate chamber to have it pass (as I understand it, there were some 6 Senators or so there last night). That one guy says something about asking unanimous consent that SRes39 (the resolution) be agreed to. The presiding chair says "all those in favor say aye, all those opposed say no, the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it." And bam, it's done. All you need is one Senator sitting there saying aye and it's "unanimous."

A "roll call vote" is when they literally go through each Senator's name and he or she has to vote yes or no. They didn't do that last night, on purpose, so there would be no record of the "no" votes.

What we are talking about, and what we are angry about, is NOT who did or didn't vote for the resolution. In principle, NOBODY voted for the resolution and, at the same time, EVERYBODY did because it was passed "unanimously." What we are upset about is that you ALSO can "cosponsor" legislation before and AFTER it is voted on. Cosponsoring legislation is a way of showing your support the legislation, and usually your intention to vote for it. Apparently this resolution had 84 cosponsors, but 16 Senators refused to cosponsor it.

The question is therefore, why did Senator X refuse to cosponsor legislation, in essence, opposing lynching?

But it gets better. A senator can add themself as a cosponsor even AFTER a resolution is passed. That means the 16 hold-outs can STILL now add themselves as cosponsors of the resolution.

So why don't they?

PS Feinstein's office and Sununu's office are telling people the vote was "unanimous." Cute, but not the point. Conrad's office is claiming that the Senator was out of town and thus couldn't vote for the bill. Again, cute, but not the point. The real question is why didn't the 16 Senators add themselves as cosponsors, and why don't they now?

The Republican Senators who won't take a stand against lynching:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR) (he's fine)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

Find their phone numbers here.