Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federalism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects $350,000 federalism study bill after heated debate
Summary
Senators debated House Bill 207, which proposed expanding the Commission on Federalism and funding curriculum work; concerns over a $350,000 fiscal note and language referencing an Article V convention led to an amendment and the bill’s defeat, 11–17 (1 absent).
Senators voted down second substitute House Bill 207 on March 8 after extended debate over funding, consultant selection and references to an Article V convention.
Sponsor Senator Christiansen described the bill as a step to "restore a proper balance in the federal system," saying it would expand the Commission on Federalism and develop curriculum material for public and postsecondary audiences. He acknowledged a fiscal note during his opening remarks and said Phase 1 materials were already available online.
Opponents repeatedly pressed the sponsor on a $350,000 fiscal note and on the bill’s consultant language. Senator Henderson asked who the consultants might be and whether the legislation effectively endorsed groups like the Convention of States. Senator Dayton offered an amendment to remove explicit Article V promotion language; Dayton said the goal was to study tools, not to promote an Article V convention.
Several senators, including Senator Weiler and Senator Hilliard, said the state already has ample federalism curriculum and questioned spending $350,000 on duplicative materials. Supporters said national, nonpartisan experts and a UVU Center for Constitutional Studies relationship justified the approach and that the project could be useful for legislators and the public.
After amendment and further discussion, the Senate recorded 11 yea votes, 17 nay votes and 1 absent; the second substitute failed on the floor.
