Senator McGillivray, the sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1 (SJ 1), presented proposed changes to the Legislature’s joint rules, focusing on procedural and timing amendments and inviting committee discussion.

The resolution would allow a bill sponsor to request a revised legal note if an amendment resolves an issue previously flagged in a legal note; shorten the deadline for a chief sponsor to return a picked-up bill to two legislative days; permit a House sponsor to add or remove a cosponsor before that bill returns from first committee but prevent the Senate from removing a cosponsor; require that the sponsor of a bill be appointed to any conference committee on that bill; make only the rules committees able to designate a bill as identical to another; change several transmittal deadlines (general bills from 45 to 40 days, general/joint resolutions to the 67th day, and appropriation bills to the 69th day); and clarify that a veto message is officially received when the clerk or secretary time-stamps and dates the bill on receipt.

Why it matters: The amendments affect how quickly bills move, who can alter sponsorship, which body determines whether bills are considered to accomplish the same purpose, and administrative deadlines that govern bill transmittals and veto processing. Several senators raised concerns about how the “same purpose” language in the identical-bill provision (Joint Rule 4070/4072) could be interpreted and applied during a session.

During questions, multiple senators sought clarification about Joint Rule 4070 (designating a bill as identical or to accomplish the same purpose). Senator Bowman asked whether the rules committee could effectively block a bill in the other chamber if a similar bill had been finally rejected in one house. Todd, a committee staff member, and Mr. Roberts (committee counsel/staff) explained that the longstanding interpretation has been that a bill “finally rejected” in one house during the session creates a high threshold: a bill that is identical or is designated as accomplishing the same purpose generally cannot be introduced or received in that house during that session, and the rules committee would be the body to make that determination and could refer the matter to the full body for action.

Several senators, including Senator Baldwin and Senator Usher, expressed concern that the phrase “accomplish the same purpose” is broader than the word “identical” and could lead to the rules committee blocking bills that have only been tweaked or contain different fiscal provisions. Senator Baldwin said the language “designated to accomplish the same purpose” could give the rules committee broad authority to prevent introduction or receipt of bills; he urged reconsideration or a conceptual amendment removing that change. Senator Usher and others noted scenarios where a bill’s fiscal components change between chambers, and questioned whether those differences could still fall under the “same purpose” bar.

Senator Enrich argued the change merely formalizes a long-standing parliamentary principle and provides additional review beyond a single presiding officer’s discretion. He said the committee of the whole retains ultimate authority and that this measure provides an extra procedural check by requiring the rules committee to consider potential conflicts.

No informational or opposing witnesses appeared at the hearing. The committee did not take executive action on SJ 1 during the session; several members asked for time to consult with their caucuses. Senator Rusher moved to adjourn for the day; the chair announced the hearing on SJ 1 ended and that the committee would reconvene the next day at 3:00 p.m. for further consideration.

The hearing included detailed references to the following joint rules as described on the record: joint rule 10130 (subsection noted), 10138 (and 10138b), 3030, 4070 (and 4072), 42100, 4200, and the transmittal and veto receipt language discussed in the record. Specific numeric changes mentioned on the record included moving a general-bill transmittal from day 45 to day 40, setting general/joint resolution transmittal to day 67, and moving appropriation bill transmittal to day 69. The record also notes the sponsor may request a revised legal note if an amendment cures an issue previously cited in the legal note.

The committee characterized the session as a policy/procedural hearing; senators asked for additional review and discussion before voting. No formal vote or amendment on SJ 1 was recorded on the transcript provided.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing and adjourned to allow members time to caucus and prepare for executive action the following day.