Reluctant state legislators won't have to hide in the restroom or behind the kitchen door if a state law requiring them to vote is modified by the 2008 Legislature, now just six weeks away.

Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble, R-Provo, will introduce several concurrent bills aimed at setting up — through law and internal Senate and House rules — a system of checks and balances that will allow a legislator to declare a conflict of interest and get out of voting on a measure embodying that conflict.

In addition, Bramble wants to better define what a conflict of interest is — not an easy matter.

As it now stands, each of the 104 part-time lawmakers must, by law, vote on every bill that comes before them on their chamber floors if they are present in the Capitol.

That requirement has led, over the years, to some strange legislative behavior.

Before the House was remodeled in the 1990s, there was a single women's room just off the House Chamber floor, and a female lawmaker once locked herself in, refusing to come out for a "call of the House" — a mandatory vote for all members. House staff finally found a key to the bathroom, opened the door, and the lawmaker was required to cast a vote.

In another instance, a House member was found by the sergeant of arms hiding behind the House's kitchen door, trying to avoid a vote.

Bramble, after weeks of study, including talking with leaders in other state legislatures, says he believes he's found a workable solution that won't let timid legislators avoid important votes, but will allow a legislator to be present but not voting on issues involving true conflicts of interest.

"There are a lot of tough votes that some legislators may want to pass on," said Bramble. A good example is HB148, the main private school voucher bill that passed by one vote in the House last session and subsequently was overturned by voters last month.

"I think a number of Salt Lake County legislators, including some Republicans," would have liked to be present but not voting on that one, said Bramble.

His idea likely wouldn't allow that, however.

Bramble wants to let any legislator appeal to the three main leaders of his body, asking that he not have to vote on a bill on which he believes he has a conflict of interest. In the Senate, the Senate president, majority leader and minority leader would decide if the senator had to vote or could recuse himself. If the conflicted senator didn't like their decision, he could appeal to the whole Senate, which by majority vote would decide if he could recuse himself.

If given a recusal, even if there was a call of the house — a mandatory vote by all senators — that particular senator would not have to vote, explained Bramble. The same would apply in the House of Representatives.