The challenge of maintaining a civil discourse

REP. JERRY GOVAN was clearly out of line when, frustrated that one of his bills had not advanced, he grabbed a fellow House member by the tie, ripped his shirt and inadvertently hit another legislator who was trying to separate the two.

A hallmark of our government is the ability of elected officials to debate difficult issues without getting personal, or angry. Even heated arguments are considered out of bounds, and demanding of apology, in legislative bodies. To go beyond shouts and insults to actual physical violence is beyond the pale.

House Speaker David Wilkins, alarmed by Mr. Govan’s refusal to apologize to the House, says he needs additional powers to discipline unruly members.

We disagree.

Mr. Wilkins, who makes committee assignments, already has the power to change them, as he did in removing Mr. Govan from the influential House Judiciary Committee. He has the power to deliver a stern tongue-lashing from the House floor — for all practical purposes, a public reprimand — as he did in this case.

Infringements that demand further action can be sent to the House Ethics Committee, whose members are empowered by the full House to investigate complaints about representatives and impose sanctions as needed. If the committee decides that removing the representative from office is needed, it can do so only with the approval of two-thirds of the full House.

These are essential steps; the 124 members of the House are all elected by the voters in their districts, who have the right to determine who will represent them. Even an official reprimand should be done only when it is clearly needed, and then only when the full House — or its chosen delegates on the Ethics Committee — have fully considered the matter.

Although he serves as chief administrator of the House, the speaker does not represent any more voters than any other representative; one legislator should not be able to take disciplinary action against another.

Mr. Wilkins should reconsider his attempt to further empower the speaker’s office. Mr. Govan should apologize to the entire House for his actions.

But that should not be the end of this matter.

Mr. Wilkins told the House that he has talked in the wake of the altercation with several other members of the Legislative Black Caucus and that he had “made a commitment to bring different folks together at the table, to explore ideas face to face at regular meetings.”

We hope the speaker and other House leaders pursue this course of action vigorously. While many people don’t want to acknowledge it, racial tensions exist in the House; many of them stem from the fact that black representatives, all Democrats, are frustrated that their ideas seem constantly to be ignored by a Republican majority that too often makes up its mind on a course of action and simply will not be deterred.

If it is not already doing so, the House leadership needs to do some soul-searching about why the House seems increasingly like a cauldron about to bubble over. The idea of self-government — of people resolving sometimes deep divisions through debate rather than force — only works when those who lose a debate know that there will always be another day, and that they will always have the opportunity to have their opinions considered before decisions are made. Those in the majority have a special obligation to create the atmosphere that is conducive to that.