The pattern repeats.
For the second consecutive Missouri legislative session, a rarely used parliamentary maneuver has stalled action.
The maneuver - "previous question" or PQ - was employed last week by majority Republicans in the Senate to end a Democratic filibuster to block a religious liberty proposal. In the aftermath of the PQ, Democrats have used another maneuver to slow proceedings.
The tactic mirrors a Republican PQ used near the end of the 2015 session to end a Democratic filibuster on a right-to-work bill. Democrats responded by blocking further action.
The clashes are noteworthy because they represent a departure from Senate tradition. PQ was not invoked from 1867 through 1970 and, since 1970, has been used only 15 times. The infrequency of cutting off debate reflects the Senate adherence to respecting the power of each of its 34 members.
Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, who served in the state Senate from 1987-93, recalls: "We never had a PQ motion in the six years that I served there, and we had as many disagreements as the folks we've got up here now. The reason that the PQ is a problem is it undermines the power of individual senators - not because it's a partisan tool."
As reported in a Wednesday News Tribune story, Senate Floor Leader Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, and Minority Leader Joe Keaveny, D-St. Louis, are meeting in an effort to resolve the impasse.
In his Monday column, Kehoe defended using the PQ. "While insiders lament the use of the "previous question' as a "nuclear option,' it is in fact the opposite side of the same coin as the filibuster."
But Keaveny countered use of the PQ was "pretty traumatic. It's going to take a while for people to work their way through it."
An insight was offered by Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, R-Joplin, when he said: "I do think term limits play to that (the use of both the filibuster and PQ), and you don't have relationships with members serving 10 or 20 years together, where you can go and strike a deal."
We understand the rationale for imposing term limits, but a consequence is term-limited lawmakers feel a greater sense of urgency to get things done. And such haste may cause elected officials to use whatever means possible to accomplish goals within the allotted time.
An immediate, and ironic, consequence is backlash may come in the form of a slowdown.
A more dire consequence is time-honored traditions of respect, decorum and compromise may be sacrificed on the altar of urgency.