View this post on the web at [link removed]

🕒 Read time: 7 minutes
A reminder that most of our afternoon columns are reserved for our paid subscribers. You can read more about that here [ [link removed] ]. This piece was originally firewalled when it ran last Friday, but has been now been made available to everyone. If you follow what happens in the State Legislature, this is important reading for YOU.
For Elected Representatives, Silence Is Not Golden
There is an unsettling practice in the California State Legislature — State Senators and Assemblymembers who are in their respective chambers when a vote takes place, but choose not to vote.
Today, over at the CalMatters website, an article by Ryan Sabalow about this terrible practice is worth reading [ [link removed] ]. In it, I say, “Somebody’s voting record is the single most appropriate way for a voter to understand how they’re being represented in Sacramento, because it’s black and it’s white. When you go to look and you see that there’s ‘no vote recorded,’ you obviously don’t know what that means.”
I knew this piece was coming when I spoke with the reporter who was writing it last week, giving me time to produce this column.
Let me start by saying that there are a couple of reasons why being present and not voting might make sense. One would be an actual conflict of interest — for example, if a legislator has a direct financial stake in the outcome of a bill. Another would be if the bill’s language had been substantially changed at the last minute, leaving no time for proper review. But outside of rare cases like these, there is no good reason to dodge the duty of casting a vote if you are right there in the room. In fact, there are many reasons why refusing to vote harms the process, accountability, and the public.
Here are five of them:
1. Representation Denied
Voters elect legislators to take positions. Members who are physically present but decline to vote deny their constituents the promised representation. The public deserves clarity on where their representative stands. Without a recorded vote, constituents cannot evaluate performance, hold officials accountable, or even know whether their concerns were heard inside the Capitol. This isn’t complicated - unless you think a piece of legislation in front of you, as it is presented, should be a law - vote no.
2. Dodging Accountability
Refusing to vote allows lawmakers to avoid tough decisions that might anger one side or the other. It’s political gamesmanship at the expense of transparency. Accountability comes from a record, and declining to vote erases the record.
In fact, Sacramento insiders will tell you this isn’t just about personal hesitation — it’s often encouraged by special interests. When they realize a legislator won’t support them outright, well-heeled lobbyists will sometimes say, “Well, if you can’t vote with us, can you at least lay off?” That’s the slang for not voting at all. It allows the lobbyist to claim their “neutralized” opposition while allowing the legislator to duck responsibility. It’s a cozy arrangement that benefits everyone in the Capitol — except the public.
3. Skewing Legislative Outcomes
Non-votes can alter the outcome of legislation just as surely as a “yes” or “no.” A controversial bill might pass or fail by a razor-thin margin — and silent members tip the scales by abstention without ever being recorded as taking a side. This hidden influence undermines the legitimacy of outcomes and leaves the public guessing where real support or opposition stood.
4. Erosion of Public Trust
Citizens expect elected officials to lead, not hide. Over time, repeated refusals to vote feed cynicism and the belief that politicians care more about self-preservation than serving the public. That erosion of trust weakens civic engagement. And once people conclude that lawmakers are deliberately ducking responsibility, they are far less likely to believe the system is fair, open, or worthy of participation.
5. Undermining Debate and Deliberation
The legislative process is designed to be open and deliberative. When members dodge votes, they reduce the quality of debate. A healthy democracy thrives on differences of opinion being aired, recorded, and judged. Silence smothers that process. Worse, it sends a message to colleagues and the public alike that serious issues can be sidestepped rather than confronted with courage and honesty.
So, Does It Matter?
It matters a great deal. Legislators who choose not to vote while sitting in their seats fail their most basic responsibility. Representation is denied. Accountability is dodged. Legislative outcomes are skewed. Public trust is eroded. Debate is undermined.
Put plainly: refusing to vote is not a harmless act. It is a deliberate choice that chips away at the very purpose of representative government.
In the article, one legislator, Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) says in defense of being present but not voting, “The way you say ‘no,’ sometimes it matters. And sometimes a soft ‘no’ is called for.”
To be very clear, when you don’t vote you are not giving a soft not, you are giving a loud “I have no position on your bill.”
Lackey has been in the Assembly for over a decade, indicating that this is a systemic problem - a cultural acceptance of the idea that it is okay to monkey around with your voting record for political reasons.
This practice of not voting raises a larger, uncomfortable question: why run for office if you are unwilling to make decisions? Californians elect Senators and Assemblymembers to represent them as directly and visibly as possible — by casting votes on the laws that shape daily life. The people of this state didn’t send anyone to Sacramento to master the art of silence.
If a legislator’s idea of representation is to sit quietly, pressing neither “aye” nor “no” when called upon, then they are betraying their constituents’ trust and their office’s duty. Voters deserve decision-makers, not seat-fillers.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?