Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Session Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate defeats proposal to shift session schedule but approves study amendment to explore periodic reconvening
Summary
Senators debated a plan to reconvene the legislature periodically (a National Guard-style model). An amendment to study the idea passed but the underlying bill failed on final passage.
Senators considered a proposal to change the legislative calendar to a periodic reconvening model — short three-day monthly sessions for most of the year — but the full measure failed final passage Tuesday after lengthy debate.
Senate Bill 23-19 sought to replace the traditional multiweek session with a schedule modeled on the National Guard: three consecutive natural days each month (Friday–Sunday) except December, plus up to seven additional days annually. The Finance and Taxation and State and Local Government committees reviewed the measure; the carrier reported a committee recommendation of do not pass (6-0).
Senator Castaneda, the bill carrier in committee, summarized the proposal and the committee’s decision. Opponents raised logistical and cost concerns, including increased driving and higher per-night hotel rates, additional per diem implications and uncertainty about effective dates for bills and appropriations.
Senator Macrom moved a floor amendment to convert the bill into a mandated interim study conducted by legislative management. That amendment — which would have legislative management study periodic reconvening and potentially recommend alternate proposals during the 2025–26 interim — passed on a verification vote of 25-22.
“Maybe we'll come out with something totally different. But it does give us a vehicle to get together and talk about other ways to conduct the sessions going forward,” Senator Grama said during floor debate in support of the study amendment.
Despite the amendment surviving, the bill’s final passage failed after a roll call: the secretary reported a final tally of 21 ayes and 26 nays. Supporters said the model could broaden participation and reduce the burden of long continuous sessions; opponents said it would complicate scheduling, increase travel, and likely not yield the anticipated savings.
The amendment sends the issue to interim study, but the legislature will not adopt the scheduling change this session.
