House Rules committee approves joint rules changes after questions on deadlines and veto timing

Sen. Tom McGillivray, presenting Senate Joint Resolution 1, told the House Rules Committee that the proposed joint rules are "nearly the exact same thing you've been operating under" and highlighted a set of substantive clarifications and procedural tweaks. He listed changes including authority for a sponsor to request revision of legal notes, a requirement that a bill sponsor be on any conference committee for that bill, limits on who may remove cosponsors in each chamber, and an explicit rule on how veto messages are received and timestamped.

The changes also move several transmittal dates and, as McGillivray put it, "we bumped those 2 days," affecting general bills, joint resolutions and appropriations bills. On the journal-authentication process, McGillivray said the rule adds the secretary of the senate and the chief clerk to the set of officials who authenticate the house and senate journals.

The rules sponsor faced questions from committee members about practical effects. Representative Beatty asked whether the transmittal deadlines in the package matched those used under temporary rules this year; McGillivray confirmed they were the same deadlines and said the legislative council will review their effectiveness during the interim. Beatty said staff had reported the deadlines had "jammed up some of our legislation" and stated his view that "this experiment with transmittal deadlines has been a failure," urging further review.

Representative Rivas pressed McGillivray on a provision that makes a veto message "officially received" when time-stamped by the clerk or secretary, saying lawmakers often announce vetoes on the floor so the chamber hears them directly. McGillivray responded that the time stamp is intended to provide a clear, official receipt so there is no dispute about when a veto arrived: "the time stamp just simply when it's stamped by the secretary or the chief clerk, that's officially when we got that bill back." He acknowledged the rule narrows who may be the official recipient compared with prior practice.

With no proponents, opponents or informational witnesses appearing, McGillivray closed his presentation. The committee moved to executive action and conducted a voice vote on SJ1. The chair called for "aye," and an "aye" response was heard; Representative Sullivan was recorded as voting "no." The chair concluded the executive action and adjourned the committee, and McGillivray said he would be the carrier for the item.

The committee did not provide a roll-call tally of ayes during the voice vote; the record identifies one recorded no vote by Representative Sullivan. Legislative council review and any interim evaluation of the transmittal deadlines were discussed as next steps.