Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb142 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on HB142: Sponsor seeks to clarify partisan-bill rules for interim committees, increase partisan bill limit to five
Summary
House Bill 142, carried by Representative Lucas Schubert at the request of the House majority leader, would clarify that partisan bills advanced by interim committees belong to the majority party and raise the cap on partisan bills from four to five. Proponents and members debated definition and rationale; no committee vote was recorded.
Representative Lucas Schubert opened a hearing on House Bill 142 on Oct. 12, 2025, asking the committee to clarify who may advance partisan bills from interim committees and to increase the existing partisan-bill cap from four to five.
The bill matters because it would change how interim committees control the limited number of partisan bills they may advance to the full Legislature and clarify which caucus can claim those partisan slots.
"House Bill 142 makes two changes to the interim committee laws," Representative Lucas Schubert said. "The first change is a simple word change to clarify the partisan bills passed by an interim committee belong to the majority party." He explained the bill would make explicit that partisan bills require a winning (majority) vote and therefore should be counted as belonging to the majority party. Schubert also said leadership requested raising the partisan-bill limit from four to five to give committees additional capacity without undermining interim committees’ educational role.
Steve Fitzpatrick (House District 24) testified in support, describing the change as a response to a dispute in the Economic Affairs interim committee where minority members sought to advance bills despite holding fewer seats. "It made no sense to me that we would fight over, trying to pass a bill on a 3–7 vote," Fitzpatrick said, urging clarity in the statute. Several committee members questioned the premise and the definition of "partisan." Representative Tuss asked why the minority could not be allowed to propose partisan bills; Representative Carlin suggested framing the rule as requiring a committee majority rather than tying it to party membership.
Schubert responded that the intent behind the interim committee structure change was to keep committees focused on study and bipartisan work, allowing unlimited bipartisan bills while limiting partisan bills. He said elections have consequences and the majority party should have priority in limited partisan slots. Representative Greer asked whether members could still carry the same ideas independently outside the interim process; Schubert said the bill would not prevent that.
No formal committee action to amend or pass HB142 was recorded during the hearing; the sponsor closed the hearing and the committee proceeded to the next scheduled bill.
Votes at this hearing were procedural or not recorded; the committee heard proponent testimony and member questions but did not take a final vote on HB142.
