A quick question back is who says a message bill has to be one that is not one focused on legitimate functions of government. I’m not saying they shouldn’t also focus on nuts and bolts items, those are essential and proper. But when legislators choose to avoid dealing with difficult (maybe should have used that word to clarify ‘message’ bills) issues (an example would be our US congress avoiding social security reform or immigration reform) because they got reelectionitis then I think we are rewarding behavior that is borderline cowardly and self-serving.

As to your last question, I would say ethics reform may be top of the list, others include education reform–I don’t mean just vouchers here, although I believe vouchers is one part of the puzzle. Why are we not looking at how technology can be effectively used in the classroom or why aren’t we expanding the charter school program where there is a bit more freedom to experiment with new and innovative teaching models and ciriculums? Health care reform is another one that keeps getting put off?

I guess I should add to the post that the litmus test is not the only consideration, but the answer to it gives me some meaningful insight into the character and leadership of any particular candidate as well as helping see if the title is more important than making meaningful reform.
Hope that helps.

Which types of message bills pass your “candidate litmus test”?