Well, I didn’t expect to be recycling this cheeseball graphic so soon, but here we are with House leadership violating one of the fundamental rules of running a legislative body. Last time it was letting the minority Republicans win something for the first time in (per Rep. Mark Higley) 18 years. This time it’s depending on Republican votes to pass a major bill because a solid majority of Democrats wanted to change it.

Whatever the merits of the bill in question, this is another case of leadership malpractice. If you can’t convince your members to go your way, then run to the front of the pack and at least pretend you’re leading.

The bill, S.208, passed the Senate as a ban on police personnel — local, state, federal — wearing masks or otherwise concealing their identities, and requiring the wearing of visible identification. The House Judiciary Committee removed federal police from the bill because a court decision struck down a similar California law, and Judiciary felt that S.208 would suffer the same fate.

But when the bill went to the full House, it became clear that most Democrats preferred the Senate version. House leadership repeatedly postponed a floor vote as it sought a way forward for the House Judiciary version. Apparently they gave up, because the vote finally happened on Wednesday. A proposed amendment to restore the Senate version came before the House, and more than two-thirds of voting Democrats bucked leadership and voted for the amendment.

Now, that’s embarrassing.

The amendment was only defeated because an overwhelming number of Republicans voted “No” — which was a vote in support of Democratic leadership’s position.

The crucial vote was 65 in favor of amending S.208 and 77 against, with the remainder absent or not voting. Caveat: I took on the tedious task of tabulating the partisan breakdown of the roll call, and my figures may be off slightly. But by my count, 54 of the 77 “No” votes were cast by Republicans. The remainder came from Democrats. By contrast, 52 Democrats voted in favor of restoring the Senate bill. In short, the bill would have failed if not for the strong support of minority Republicans.

Many of the Democrats who voted with leadership are members of leadership themselves, as committee chairs or caucus officers. The rank and file refused to go along with the watered-down S.208 passed by House Judiciary and backed by caucus leadership.

Again, embarrassing.

And a missed opportunity, politically speaking. There’s a perfectly valid argument that passing the Senate version of S.208 is a meaningless gesture because the courts would likely strike down a state’s attempt to govern the activities of federal law enforcement. Which assumes that Gov. Phil Scott wouldn’t veto the thing for exactly those reasons. I get all that.

However.

Is this a time to pull in our horns and be strictly practical? Or is this a time to make a statement about masked, anonymous officers terrorizing Vermonters? Is this a time to make a stand agains the excesses of immigration enforcement under Trump? Is this a time to show support to communities in Trump’s crosshairs — people of color, LGBTQ+ folk, and the like?

Is it worth the expense of defending the law in court if need be, and probably losing?

To me, the first answer is “No” and the rest are all “Yes.” A strong majority of Democrats agrees with me, so much so that they were willing to buck their leadership and abandon the work of their colleagues on House Judiciary.

Passing a clean version of S.208 and forcing the governor’s hand would also be a political win for Democrats. It would have energized the Democratic base, which is ardently anti-Trump and anti-ICE. And you know, the political dimension is kind of important — especially in an election year.

Your mileage may vary. But whether you would have voted for or against the Senate version of S.208, the fact remains that House leadership lost its members on a key measure. That is, at the risk of repeating myself, embarrassing.