Governor Gordon’s recent text blast changed the game. Under the banner of, “Trust, but verify,” he effectively made 50 endorsements in Republican primary races. What else could one call a message that encourages citizens to contact one preferred candidate without mentioning that a challenger even exists?
Wyoming Statute 22-25-104 makes it illegal for a major party to spend money in primary elections. But it doesn’t explicitly forbid it’s highest elected officials from doing so.
After a gang of eight senators—including the president—endorsed senate candidate, Bryce Reece’, primary opponent, the chairman of the Wyoming State Senate Republican Conference, Brian Boner, reminded his colleagues: “One of the last unwritten rules that was largely adhered to until this year is to not publicly interfere in the primary elections of other legislators.”
Gordon’s endorsements came only three days later. The timing seems like a deliberate provocation. Clearly, the rules have changed. But that is only part of the story.
More interesting is how the definition of “verify” has changed.
When President Ronald Reagan adopted the Russian proverb doveryai, no proveryai (i.e trust, but verify), his was "the most stringent verification regime in history" (Remarks on signing the INF treaty, December 8, 1987), Reagan won the Cold War not by asking Mikael Gorbachev to repeat verbal assurances, but by investigators, eyewitnesses and open books.
Gordon’s text, on the other hand, offers only one means of verification. If “mailings, texts, emails, & calls” raise questions about the governor’s preferred candidate, simply contact him or her for reassurance.
As I wrote before, by all means, make that call! Such a wonderful opportunity to know your candidate on a personal level should not be passed by. But don’t mistake that conversation for serious fact-checking. Trust, but verify by a careful inspection of the record.
Experienced observers understand that the lawmaking process is never a simple matter of casting a final vote. By the time a bill gets to that final vote, everybody has a pretty good idea about how the vote is going to come out. If it will pass anyway, opponents of the bill might find it politically expedient to go on record as one of its supporters.
Constituents who never look further than that final vote, may never learn of the many ways that their representative was undermining their interests during the weeks, months, and years before.
“Trust, but verify” should motivate constituents to examine what their legislator did before the bill was assigned to committee, while it was in committee, and while it was debated on the floor.
Did he or she publicly ask the House speaker or Senate president to bring it out of his drawer? Did he or she offer—or support—committee amendments that strengthened or weakened the bill? Did he or she speak on the floor in support of, or in opposition to, the bill? And how did he or she vote on the amendments that came to the floor?
In addition to the record of a particular bill’s passage or defeat, constituents should also be aware of similar bills either from previous legislative sessions, or during the same legislative session. Sometimes, when the public tide demands legislation that a lawmaker opposes, it is politically expedient to support a weaker version of the bill. It appears to be supportive, but falls short of what constituents want.
All of these things matter as much as one’s stance on the final vote. They are part of the public record and can be discovered by spending a little time at WyoLeg.gov.
At WyoLeg.gov, you can explore legislative action going back 24 years without ever leaving your computer. Get started by clicking on “2024 Budget Session Bills” at the bottom of the page. Scroll through the various bills and click on one that interests you.
Once you have pulled up a bill, pay special attention to the tabs labeled “Amendments” and “Digest.” Here you can read how your representative treated the bill on the days when it was in committee and on the floor for debate. Armed with this information, you can go to YouTube.com /@WyomingLegislature and watch your representative or senator in action.
Trust, but verify. The more Wyoming citizens take the time to learn the facts, the more their government will be responsive to public opinion. In the process, personal relationships with elected officials are enhanced by a deeper understanding of the governmental process.
Thanks for the links to the related CSD pieces.
While our erstwhile fellows strive to wear the cloak of statesmen or legislators, I never forget that what sets the prior non-legislator apart from his former self is the power of compelling others through having no competitor in the power of using force to gain compliance or elimination. A paradigm shift occurs within that person. That shift provides justification for guile. Some embrace that justification, and some resist it. Those who embrace it will utter irrational words and phrases like greater good, the good of the community, or, in our case, what is best for Wyoming, never defining the good and never comparing the absence of definition to its negative consequences. Absent a 100% reliable and valid litmus test for guile in our erstwhile fellows, I appreciate your outlining the steps to uncover those who have submitted themselves to deception through guile.