icon_boot.jpgWorst Attendance in Georgia Legislature.

This is a case where #1 is not superlative. The AJC reports attendance records for Georgia legislators: Lawmakers missing in action: When votes were taken, they were out for count. Sadly, the “top” 3 are Democrats: Ron Sailor (D-Lithonia); Pam Stephenson (D-Decatur); and LaNett Stanley-Turner (D-Atlanta). Representative Sailor missed 211 of 233 votes on bills, resolutions and procedural matters. Excused absences were not included in the totals. The “top” 10 list is below the fold.

Another good reason to allow Democratic challengers to buy access to the voter file.


WHO MISSED THE MOST VOTES

The following members of the Georgia House of Representatives make up a Top 10 list of lawmakers who have missed the most of 233 votes on bills, resolutions and procedural matters since the Jan. 14 start of the 2008 General Assembly. The total of missed votes does not include those from which the lawmakers were excused.

Ron Sailor (D-Lithonia)

Votes missed: 211

Percent missed: 91%

Pam Stephenson (D-Decatur)

Votes missed: 104

Percent missed: 45%

LaNett Stanley-Turner (D-Atlanta)

Votes missed: 77

Percent missed: 33%

Fran Millar (R-Dunwoody)

Votes missed: 76

Percent missed: 33%

David Lucas (D-Macon)

Votes missed: 60

Percent missed: 26%

Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Decatur)

Votes missed: 53

Percent missed: 23%

Stan Watson (D-Decatur)

Votes missed: 53

Percent missed: 23%

Alisha Thomas Morgan (D-Austell)

Votes missed: 52

Percent missed: 22%

Calvin Smyre (D-Columbus)

Votes missed: 52

Percent missed: 22%

Joe Heckstall (D-East Point)

Votes missed: 50

Percent missed: 21%

 

13 Responses to Democrats top the list

  1. Trackboy1 says:

    Bless your heart, RuralDem.

    Yep, I’m on my Calvin and Dub watch, nine of the top ten vote missers are Dem’s. Way for Calvin and DuB to have the troops in line. And most of those nine all live in the metro area. Doesn’t MARTA run right to the Gold Dome.

    Pam Stephenson is making a cool $50,000 per month since she self-appointed herself to be the interim Grady CEO, all while getting paid as a legislator who misses 45% of her votes.

    Yep, RuralDem, Cal and DuB have some winners with Ron and Pam.

  2. Trackboy1 says:

    Bless your heart, RuralDem.

    Yep, I’m on my Calvin and Dub watch, nine of the top ten vote missers are Dem’s. Way for Calvin and DuB to have the troops in line. And most of those nine all live in the metro area. Doesn’t MARTA run right to the Gold Dome.

    Pam Stephenson is making a cool $50,000 per month since she self-appointed herself to be the interim Grady CEO, all while getting paid as a legislator who misses 45% of her votes.

    Yep, RuralDem, Cal and DuB have some winners with Ron and Pam.

  3. chris says:

    Part of the problem with the incumbent protection policy of the party is that the party is placating the misplaced fears of incumbents who have nothing to fear. What chance does a primary opponent have against Lucas, Smyre, Benfield, or Morgan? I’d say 0%. So if the giving equal access to the file doubles the chance of their opponents their chances will still be…0%.

    Behind the scenes, party chairs, caucus leaders, party leaders and other members of the legislature SHOULD put pressure on challengers to members who shouldn’t be challenged. If someone wants to run against Benfield, they’ll need to come up with a better excuse than “she’s a mother” and quite frankly there aren’t any. I’d prefer our Democratic incumbents who do a good job and represent their districts save their money for general elections, one way to guarantee that is have them win a fair election.

    If the party tries to protect incumbents, future challengers will just think that if they get a more favorable they’ll have a chance to win these unwinnable races. They’re wrong. Give the file to longshot opponents and watch them lose by big margins…if our incumbents win big races in their primaries, that’s the best way to ward off future challenges, not by twisting the arms of a party chair who is a little too eager to placate them.

  4. chris says:

    Part of the problem with the incumbent protection policy of the party is that the party is placating the misplaced fears of incumbents who have nothing to fear. What chance does a primary opponent have against Lucas, Smyre, Benfield, or Morgan? I’d say 0%. So if the giving equal access to the file doubles the chance of their opponents their chances will still be…0%.

    Behind the scenes, party chairs, caucus leaders, party leaders and other members of the legislature SHOULD put pressure on challengers to members who shouldn’t be challenged. If someone wants to run against Benfield, they’ll need to come up with a better excuse than “she’s a mother” and quite frankly there aren’t any. I’d prefer our Democratic incumbents who do a good job and represent their districts save their money for general elections, one way to guarantee that is have them win a fair election.

    If the party tries to protect incumbents, future challengers will just think that if they get a more favorable they’ll have a chance to win these unwinnable races. They’re wrong. Give the file to longshot opponents and watch them lose by big margins…if our incumbents win big races in their primaries, that’s the best way to ward off future challenges, not by twisting the arms of a party chair who is a little too eager to placate them.

  5. RuralDem says:

    Uh oh, Smyre’s name has been mentioned, where’s TrackBoy1? I’m sure he’ll blame everyone’s lack of voting on Porter and Smyre, somehow.

    Anyway, for those using THIS ISSUE as a way to push for the “open” vote file idea, are you really wanting Lucas, Benfield, Morgan, etc… have a primary challenge?

    If so then I’m shocked!

  6. RuralDem says:

    Uh oh, Smyre’s name has been mentioned, where’s TrackBoy1? I’m sure he’ll blame everyone’s lack of voting on Porter and Smyre, somehow.

    Anyway, for those using THIS ISSUE as a way to push for the “open” vote file idea, are you really wanting Lucas, Benfield, Morgan, etc… have a primary challenge?

    If so then I’m shocked!

  7. innerredneckexposed says:

    We’re number one! We’re number one!

    Hey, I take what I can get.

  8. CatherineAtlanta says:

    Tim,

    According to the AJC excused absences were not included in the totals.

  9. Tim says:

    hm, i wonder if any of them were excused for health reasons or family leave?

  10. Tim says:

    hm, i wonder if any of them were excused for health reasons or family leave?

  11. sndeak says:

    So if he isn’t writing or sponsoring legislation and he is missing 9 out of 10 votes, what exactly is he doing for his constituents? I could not find one cosponsored bill by Sailor in any of his committees

  12. sndeak says:

    So if he isn’t writing or sponsoring legislation and he is missing 9 out of 10 votes, what exactly is he doing for his constituents? I could not find one cosponsored bill by Sailor in any of his committees

  13. chris says:

    Catherine, this is yet another reason why the party should facilitate a healthy exchange of ideas in a primary instead of standing in the way of that.

    The list of reasons to oppose the party’s policy keeps growing. More importantly, has anyone seen a single reason to support it?