Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rules And Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects proposal to ban phones on chamber desks after debate over medical and constituent exemptions
Summary
Representative Davis sought to bar phones from members' desks and forbid on-floor phone use to reduce distractions and model student behavior; after extended debate about ADA and constituent‑communication exceptions the House voted 12‑50 and the amendment failed to reach the two‑thirds threshold.
Representative Davis moved to amend House Rule 15‑5 to prohibit members from placing or using cell phones or similar devices on the surface of their desks or on the House floor while the body is in session. Davis said the change would "give us two hands to work with" and urged the House to "stand with our school districts" on device policies.
Opponents pressed immediate exceptions. Representative Stival said the change "won't work" under the Americans with Disabilities Act and cited personal medical reliance on a phone‑linked continuous glucose monitor (CGM). "Under ADA, you guys this won't work," Stival said, arguing the rule would inadvertently block life‑saving alerts. Representative Knapp also cited diabetes and CGM connectivity as medical reasons to allow phones on the floor.
Other members opposed the rule on constituent‑communication grounds, noting many constituents reach legislators by text or phone during session, and on logistical grounds for members who rely on phones for quick reference or technical access. Representative Davis acknowledged the concerns and suggested exceptions for medical needs, but emphasized the broader distraction argument.
After extended debate the House called the roll; the proposed amendment received 12 Aye and 50 No and did not meet the two‑thirds threshold required for adoption under House rules. The body moved on to other business and the youth presentation from the Boys & Girls Clubs.
Context and implications Proponents framed the change as modeling behavior and reducing distraction; opponents warned of unintended consequences for members who rely on device alerts for medical conditions and of cutting off immediate constituent access. The vote leaves the floor's current practices unchanged; members or committees may revisit device‑use policies later in the session.
