DELIBERATION ON LEGISLATION
The ten legislative panels would come together to Columbus, Ohio, but they would deliberate and vote independently. Each panel would be assigned to a single bill, and the panels could either deliberate simultaneously (but separately) or in sequence. The latter might prove less chaotic, and it could permit serial media coverage of the bills during the election season.[24]
Prior to arrival in Columbus, citizens would receive information about the bill assigned to them. To promote continuity in judgments over time, panelists would also receive copies of the judgments of past panels who deliberated upon related legislation. Undoubtedly, many of these citizens would discuss their bills with friends and family beforehand, and such discussion could only beneflt the overall process. Indirectly, it would involve many more people in the process, and it would have a positive average effect on citizens' knowledge and the quality of
To ensure that citizen panelists do share a common knowledge base, however, the first day of deliberation would consist of testimony from witnesses chosen by the highest-ranking members of the legislature in favor of and opposed to the bill that each panel considers. The structure for such testimony, cross-examination, and question-and-answer could take many possible forms, drawing on the examples set by the random sample forums described in chapter 6. At the National Issues Convention, pro and con experts each made statements and then took turns answering questions from the audience. At the New Mexico Citizen Conferences, each of five or six expert witnesses made a brief statement, then citizens asked questions, which experts answered in a free-for-all format. Citizen juries have used many discussion methods, including a straightforward succession of witnesses, each of whom devotes half of his or her time to presentation and half to a question-and-answer session. A new approach taken in a recent citizen forum used a panel of witnesses in which one speaker would make a presentation, then the others would give balanced critiques of the speaker's arguments.[25]
This process of cross-examination is important because it exposes witnesses to professional scrutiny. Those testifying before the legislative citizen panel will be more reluctant to make false statements if they see it as a high-risk strategy. At a minimum, witnesses risk the erosion of their credibility if cross-examination reveals that they have used fabricated survey data, lied about their prior knowledge, or otherwise sought to deceive the citizen panel. Following the courtroom analogy, one might even want make these witnesses "subject to penalties for perjury"[26] I if cross-examination "reveals that a witness made false statements.would stop short of placing a judge in the panel room, but witnesses guilty of perjury might be subject to civil lawsuit after the fact.
Whatever particular format is used, it is important that the number of witnesses remain manageable, that the citizens be able to guide the direction of the discussion, and that either a paid moderator or a citizen-chair maintain decorum and keep the panel on schedule. My own preference is for a paid, professional moderator to manage the meetings under the direction of the citizen panelists. Following the example of the citizen juries, the moderator would be responsible for establishing and
After the first day of testimony, citizens would have a day to deliberate on their bill. The course of the deliberation itself is impossible to predict, but it could be structured to ensure full participation and conformity to the preset schedule. A trained moderator could have the responsibility of periodically reminding a panel how much time it had and what it needed to do. The moderator could also intervene if verbal conflict moved toward physical confrontation, which, incidentally, has been a rarity at random sample forums conducted in the past. The moderator would also call for three or four "round-robins" at roughly preset intervals. In a round-robin, each participant has a chance to speak for a minute, and speaking turns move from left to right without interruption. Its purpose is to draw out quieter participants, and it can cause an otherwise silent voice to shift the emphasis or direction of deliberation.
After deliberating through most of the second day, the citizen panelists would write what they considered to be the strongest arguments for and against the bill. This set of arguments would be as inclusive as possible, and it would provide a succinct written record of the facts, ideas, and considerations influencing in their deliberation. Aside from this listing of arguments, the panel would not take anything resembling a preliminary vote or straw poll on the issue.[28]
On the third day, expert witnesses would return and have the opportunity to respond to the arguments of citizens for and against the bill. Again, this process could follow many formats, but during this stage, it would be important that the lead witnesses be able to direct discussion toward their most pressing concerns. This day would be their last chance to bolster arguments, correct factual errors, and remove confusion or misunderstandings.
As citizens undertake their final deliberations on the fourth and flfth days, the debate they have heard on the previous day should give the panelists more confldence in their final votes. Citizens will have had a chance to be second-guessed by outside observers prior to reaching their final decision. By the end of the fourth day, the moderator will require the panelists to take their first formal vote by secret ballot.[29] If twothirds or more of the panelists agree on the issue (with abstentions counting as "no" votes), they will then divide into pro and con subgroups to write one-paragraph rationales for and against the bill. If there is not a two-thirds majority for or against the bill, deliberation will continue until the middle of the flfth and final day, with the moderator calling for periodic votes. If still deadlocked, the citizens will divide into pro and con groups to write rationales, but their verdict would be recorded as "undecided.[30]
Just as a priority panel would have guidelines for its deliberation on the legislative agenda, so legislative panels would have preset goals. Their task would be to reach agreement (two-thirds majority or greater) on the bill before them. Also, they would be asked—but not required— not to take a solid "yea or nay" position on the bill until their vote on the fourth day of deliberation. In the case of a statewide legislative panel, citizens would also be encouraged to try to base their vote upon their final judgment of what is in the interest of the state as a whole. Prior to arriving at that point, however, participants would be invited to contribute their own unique perspectives and experiences. Ultimately, citizen panelists would manage to combine genuine self-expression with the pursuit of a larger public judgment, but as Lynn Sanders points out, it is also important "to ensure that those who are usually left out of public discussions learn to speak whether their perspectives are common or not."[31] Most civil and criminal jurors manage to take on the role of the "neutral judge" briefly, and most past participants in past random sample forums have taken their jobs very seriously.[32] So might the participants in a legislative panel.