Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Scheduling Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends do-not-pass on 'National Guard' model to reconvene legislature monthly
Summary
Senate Bill 23-19, proposed by Sen. Jeff Magram, would reconvene the legislative assembly for three consecutive natural days each month (following a National Guard drill model). Committee members debated continuity, cost and constitutionality; after discussing a fiscal note showing initial savings but higher ongoing costs, the committee voted to
Sen. Jeff Magram proposed Senate Bill 23-19 to change the legislature’s schedule: instead of a single contiguous session, the bill would reconvene the legislative assembly for three consecutive natural days each month (the sponsor described a Friday–Saturday–Sunday pattern modeled on National Guard drill schedules), plus up to seven consecutive days per year as needed.
Magram and supporters argued the change would reduce barriers to service, expand the pool of potential legislators, allow more people to attend committee hearings, and create continuity for staff and legislators by spacing work across the year. Magram said the plan could save money and “allow more people to serve” by eliminating a single long block of session time and cutting down the need for special sessions.
Committee members raised logistical, constitutional and continuity concerns. Several senators said monthly three-day sessions would disrupt legislative rhythm and make it harder to maintain subject-matter continuity: Senator Lee cautioned that “I really see a challenge in the continuity,” saying legislators remember recent deliberations better than actions taken months earlier. Members also questioned scheduling on weekends and conflicts with religious observance and military obligations. A fiscal note, released during the hearing, projected a $5.4 million reduction in the 2025–27 biennium because of changed meeting days, but higher ongoing costs in a later biennium because travel, lodging and temporary-employee costs would increase under the proposed schedule.
After discussion, Senator Lee moved a committee recommendation of “do not pass” and Senator Castaneda seconded. The committee roll call recorded unanimous support for the do-not-pass recommendation (aye: Chair Rohrs; Vice Chair Castaneda; Senators Barta, Brownberger, Lee and Wallen). The committee therefore recommended that SB2319 not advance out of committee at that time.
Ending: The committee voted to recommend do not pass and directed no further action at that meeting; sponsors and members discussed potential study options and additional stakeholder conversations but the committee did not advance the bill.
