Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Commerce Committee rejects final rule 17.0101.305.01.A after technical correction
Summary
The Idaho Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee voted to reject the final rule language in 17.0101.305.01.A after committee members and agency staff clarified that an earlier procedural change left the blue-struck language in the final rule.
The Idaho Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee voted to reject final rule 17.0101.305.01.A in a voice vote after committee members clarified that an earlier procedural action had left the originally blue-lined language in the final rule.
Committee Vice Chair Lenny led discussion on a technical correction to docket 17-0101-2301. Lauren Smizer, regulatory and legislative affairs bureau chief at the Department of Finance and Management (DFM), told the committee: “Now, I think the next motion needs to be the rejection of the final rule, of 17.0101.305.01 point A.”
Senator Foreman moved to reject the final rule language, and Senator Lakey seconded. After brief procedural discussion about a prior motion that had rejected a pending change (the blue strikeout) but left the final rule intact, the committee voted by voice. The chair announced, “Ayes have it. And final rule 17Dash0101Dot305Dot01DotA has been rejected.”
Why it matters: committee members and DFM staff said the vote was a procedural fix to restore the rule text to the committee’s intended form. Lauren Smizer explained the sequence: the committee previously rejected a pending rule change that had crossed out a sentence; that rejection restored the sentence into the final rule, so the committee needed to reject the final-rule subsection A in its entirety to remove the sentence from the final rule.
What happened next: the committee resumed its agenda after the voice vote. Committee members did not record a roll-call tally during the voice vote; the chair announced the motion carried by voice.
Action details and procedure: committee members repeatedly clarified whether a single motion would accomplish the outcome or whether two motions (one rejecting the pending change and another rejecting the final rule subsection) were necessary. After discussion, Senator Foreman withdrew his initial motion and moved specifically to “reject final 17.0101.305.01.A,” which carried on voice vote.
The committee did not debate the substantive policy content of the rule during the correction; the discussion focused on procedural sequencing and ensuring the committee’s final action reflected its intent.
