Is flight an acceptable legislative strategy?
Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin and Indiana have fled their states to block passage of Republican bills they oppose.
Both GOP bills would weaken provisions supported by organized labor.
In Wisconsin, 14 Senate Democrats bolted to Illinois to prevent a vote on Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plan to limit collective bargaining for government workers.
Illinois also is serving as refuge for 37 of 40 House Democrats who fled Indiana. Their departure left the legislature short of the quorum needed to vote on so-called right to work legislation favored by the GOP.
Pro-business legislation has been initiated or revived in a number of states where Republicans gained ground in November elections.
Among those states is Missouri, where Republican majorities in both chambers are pushing legislation supported by business groups and opposed by organized labor.
The flight strategy employed by Democrats elsewhere, however, would not create a similar stalemate in Missouri.
Depending on state constitutions and laws, as well as party strengths, flight may be effective.
But is it reasonable or cowardly?
Delaying tactics - up to and including filibusters - are a time-honored legislative tool.
The argument may be advanced that fleeing the state en masse simply is another acceptable delaying tactic.
A counter-argument is voters elect representatives to implement their agenda. Thwarting that agenda obstructs the majority of lawmakers and, consequently, voters.
We believe lawmakers are elected to carry their constituents' concerns to the statehouse. We believe they are responsible for advancing their arguments and casting their votes - win or lose.
Attempting to govern - or obstruct governing - from beyond the state's border strikes us as ignoble.