House Rules committee holds resolution to let sponsors attach 500‑word statements to bill files

The House Rules Standing Committee on Jan. 31, 2025, debated House Joint Resolution 1, a proposal from Representative Thurston that would allow bill sponsors to attach a 500‑word statement to a bill’s online file explaining what the bill does, why it was introduced and where it came from. Representative Thurston presented the resolution and described it as a tool to help both legislators and the public quickly understand legislation.

The measure would not alter bill text, Representative Thurston said; instead the sponsor statement would appear as a separate, side‑linked document on the bill page and would be limited to 500 words and required to be “factually correct.” The sponsor noted the statement is intended to standardize material sponsors already sometimes distribute at committee or floor time so members can find it more easily.

Committee members who questioned the resolution focused on two main concerns: whether the statements could function as quasi‑intent language that courts or others might later treat as interpretive material, and whether the statements would appear too official and therefore be misconstrued by the public. “If we start writing statements about what the sponsor intends their legislation to do…how do you anticipate these statements not becoming quasi intent language?” asked Representative Peterson.

Thurston told the committee he and the drafting attorney considered those risks and said the statements would not be part of the bill and therefore would carry no additional legal weight beyond what sponsors already say in committee or on the floor. He also suggested the committee consider allowing upload of an 8.5‑by‑11 PDF so sponsors could include graphics or a one‑page explanation rather than limiting submissions strictly to plain text.

Other members expressed mixed views. Representative Burton said a labeled sponsor statement would make clear the content comes from the sponsor and might be useful to the public; Representative Peterson moved that the committee hold the measure to allow further consideration, citing the intent‑language risk and concerns about public perception. The committee took a roll call vote and the motion to hold HJR 1 passed four to three.

Votes at the committee roll call were recorded as: Burton — yes; Hollins — yes; Lee — yes; Matthews — no; Wilcox — no; Vice Chair Peterson — yes; Committee chair — no. The committee therefore held HJR 1 for further work.

Representative Thurston said after the vote that the idea is intended to standardize materials sponsors already prepare and that the committee could consider refinements such as permitting a one‑page PDF. No formal amendment or follow‑up direction was adopted at the meeting.

The hold means HJR 1 will not move forward from this meeting and could be revised and brought back to the committee at a later date.