Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate over rainy-day fund amendment ends in contested voice vote and procedural motions
Summary
Lawmakers debated HJR 31, a proposed constitutional amendment to require two-thirds approval to tap Utah's rainy-day fund. An amendment to narrow the threshold to a constitutional majority was hotly contested, led to a division call and procedural motions, and the House adjourned amid further motions and debate.
Representative Evan L. Olson introduced House Joint Resolution 31 on the House floor, proposing a constitutional amendment that would require two-thirds of members of both houses to approve any use of the state's rainy-day fund. "This is the purpose of HJR 31, to require that 2 thirds of both bodies have to agree on the use of the rainy day fund," Olson said, arguing the change would protect reserves for true emergencies.
Representative Atkinson moved to amend HJR 31 to replace the two-thirds requirement with a simple (constitutional) majority, arguing that two-thirds imposes minority control and that a constitutional majority (38 votes) is the proper threshold. "I think this is a dangerous, dangerous piece of legislation to hold up our rainy day fund," Atkinson said in debate, later urging passage of his amendment. Several speakers, including Representative Birmingham and Representative Oskarsen, supported the amendment on majority-rule grounds. Representative Offler and others opposed it, saying the original two-thirds safeguard prevents misuse of reserve funds in non-emergency situations.
The amendment drew extended floor debate. The chair first put the amendment to a voice vote; the initial voice vote was reported by the Speaker as failing and a division was requested. Later in the sequence of votes the Speaker reported that the motion had been taken by division and that the bill was amended (floor transcripts show contested voice/division procedures and back-and-forth about the result). Representative Olson contended that, with the adopted amendment, "there is no need for the bill because you can do what the amendment did anyway," and moved to strike the enactment clause.
Members then debated a motion to circle (reserve) and whether some votes had been cast inadvertently on the amendment or bill. Before the body resolved those motions, Representative Bishop moved to adjourn; the House voted to adjourn and rose until 08:00 the next morning.
The transcript records the introduction of HJR 31, an amendment replacing two-thirds with a constitutional majority, contested voice and division votes over that amendment, subsequent motions (including to strike the enactment clause and to circle), and final adjournment with further procedural questions unresolved on the floor. The precise numeric outcome of the amendment is reported in the record as contested (voice vote reported failing, then division taken and the Speaker later stated "Motion passes. Bill is amended").
