Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators send constitutional revision to third reading after close votes; proposal would move session start and other timing changes
Summary
A constitutional amendment (SJR 4) that would move the legislature's start date two weeks later and make related timing changes passed a procedural hurdle to third reading after close roll‑call votes; sponsors said the change would give staff and the Tax Commission more time for revenue estimates.
Senators voted on Senate Joint Resolution 4, a constitutional amendment proposing multiple changes to the legislative article, including moving the start of the regular session from the second Monday to the fourth Monday of January, adjusting when elected officers take office (except legislators), setting a 60‑day limit for veto overrides, and extending judicial confirmation review time limits. Sponsor Lyle Hilliard explained the measure aims to give staff and revenue analysts more time to produce and explain final revenue figures, reducing the pressure that can lead to rushed budget decisions.
Hilliard said the primary reason for the date change was to allow the state tax commission and staff extra time to "better assimilate" revenue information so the Legislature can make more informed appropriations decisions. He noted the change was intended to reduce the need for last‑minute replacements and special sessions when revenue figures require significant midyear adjustments.
The resolution drew divided votes. A roll call on an amendment to restore the earlier date (keeping the session start on the second Monday) failed on a recorded vote (amendment 11 ayes, 15 nays, three absent). The sponsor then used a simple‑majority procedural motion to move SJR 4 to third reading so he could continue working to secure the 20 votes required for final passage. A subsequent roll call to place the resolution on the third‑reading calendar passed 19–7 with three absences. The measure will continue through the constitutional amendment process, which requires subsequent approval thresholds and ultimately a public vote if enacted.
