Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/22/1996 03:32 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSTA - 2/22/96
SJR 24 CHANGE TIMING OF VETO OVERRIDE
Number 453
SENATOR SHARP brought up SJR 24 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called Senator Donley
to testify.
Number 455
SENATOR DONLEY, prime sponsor of SJR 24, stated they tried to
incorporate the recommendations of the committee in a sponsor
substitute for SJR 24, which is in the members' packets. At
Senator Leman's request, he restored the "excluding Sundays"
language throughout the timing sections of the bill, consistent
with the present constitutional provisions. It was clarified that
a subsequent legislature couldn't consider vetoed legislation of a
prior legislature. The section regarding shortening the time frame
in which the governor acts on bills following the adjournment of
the legislature has been deleted. He thinks those are all the
changes made to the legislation.
Number 470
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if Section 4 was removed.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that section was completely removed.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if this proposed constitutional
amendment is put on the ballot, how will the public understand it?
SENATOR DONLEY stated it will be difficult for them to understand
it. Hopefully, people will read the voters' guide. He finds it
hard to believe there would be much opposition to it, since it
really corrects some empty areas in the constitution, as far as the
transmittal of bills. The only area in which there may be some
concern would be changing the way special sessions are called. At
the same time, it seems like a reasonable method of polling
members. Senator Phillips is right though: people may just see a
lot of language and become confused or concerned with that much
language and just vote "no".
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that was his concern: that people
would vote "no" because it's complicated.
Number 500
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he is concerned regarding the seven-day time
period at the end of the session. With the massive amount of
legislation that comes out of both bodies at the end of session--
this says, if it doesn't return within 48 hours, excluding Sundays,
that they'll duplicate it and send it over.
SENATOR DONLEY remembered that the committee asked him to check
into that with the clerk's office. He stated that he has talked to
the clerks, and they said that at no time they can remember have
they ever not been able to transmit a bill within 24 hours. They
have the capability of doing it. Now there have been times where
they haven't been transmitted, but it hasn't been because the
clerks couldn't do it. They said that, basically, even at the end
of session they can move legislation in 45 minutes. They said
they've never failed to get a bill over within 24 hours for any
technical reason; it's always been because of a political reason.
SENATOR LEMAN asked, they said that?
SENATOR DONLEY replied yes.
SENATOR LEMAN asked who said that.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that what they said was they've never not
been able to do it within 24 hours. And most of the time they say
they can do it in 45 minutes, even at the end of the session.
They're all ready to go, when the bill is passed. The only problem
is if there are floor amendments, that slows them down a little
bit.
Number 520
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated it is his understanding that the procedure is
that when a bill has made final passage, it is engrossed, and then
enrolled. Another problem is that sometimes the president or the
speaker is not in town to sign legislation. If that was the case,
would the legislation automatically move up without their
signatures, under SJR 24?
SENATOR DONLEY replied that is correct. He does not know how else
to address the problem of someone intentionally not moving
legislation along.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated they have seen that happen for 30 and 40 days
at a time. He is concerned that the security of final review by
legal services not be breached though. He is also concerned with
putting the clerks and the secretaries in the political situation
of having to move bills without them being signed off by the
presiding officers.
SENATOR DONLEY stated the 24 hour provision is the shortest time
frame that has to be dealt with. That is for returning the
legislation to the body of origin.
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute was adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented he hasn't had anyone step forward and say
it's not do-able. This resolution still goes to the Judiciary and
Finance Committees.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Mr. Baldwin to comment on SJR 24. He asked
Mr. Baldwin if his concerns have been addressed in the committee
substitute.
Number 565
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, stated he has a couple
of comments, and they probably can be resolved in later committees.
He thinks there is some new language concerning calling sessions to
take up vetoes. He is particularly looking at the language that
begins on page 2, line 29, which specifies that a joint session
must be called before the legislature adjourns. He wondered if a
provision like this could be used to extend the session, because
once the legislature is in extra-special session there is no
limitation on what they can take up. He sees the same problem in
subsection (b) on page 3. So he thinks the implications should be
thought out: not only may you be bringing on a special session for
overrides, but you could be getting into other areas.
SENATOR DONLEY replied to the last point, that he is not scared of
the legislature in session. He understands why the executive
branch would be.
TAPE 96-14, SIDE B
Number 590
SENATOR DONLEY stated that if there is business to do at that time,
he thinks they should do it. So that doesn't concern him. The
reason it doesn't concern him is that they would have to be
violating the constitution in the first place not to hold the joint
session. So to use this legislation to violate the 121 day session
limit, they would have to break the constitution to get to that
point. Unless Mr. Baldwin is going to presume that people are
going to willy-nilly violate the constitution, then it shouldn't be
a problem.
MR. BALDWIN stated he agrees with Senator Donley that the first
point he made is kind of remote. But the second one isn't. He has
seen situations where legislators did not want a special session
called, just as much as the executive. He asked that the
consequences of not limiting the subject matter of a special
session be considered. Once you're in special session, you can
take up any matter. One way to take care of that would be to limit
what you could do at a special session.
Number 572
SENATOR DONLEY stated the reason it is drafted the way it is, is
that if we start to qualify on what we're holding the special
session, we'll never be able to reach a consensus. That is why it
is phrased in a simple "yes" or "no".
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there are any questions for Mr. Baldwin.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Mr. Baldwin if he is going to write a
little thing in the election pamphlet against SJR 24.
MR. BALDWIN responded he works for the Division of Elections, and
they couldn't ever do that. But there are plenty of public-
spirited citizens willing to come forward to comment on
legislation.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he still has concerns over the length of time
for getting legislation to legal services and back again. He would
like to extend that 7 days to 14, excluding Sundays.
SENATOR DONLEY commented he would have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that in his conversations with legal
services, they thought 10 days would probably do it, but 14 days
would be very safe.
Number 560
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that if the sponsor does not have a problem
with that, he would like to make a motion that on page 2, line 1
change "7 days" to "14 days" and add "excluding Sundays".
SENATOR DONLEY stated he would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP made a motion to adopt that amendment.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection stated the amendment had been
adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that he would really welcome other
suggestions from members of the committee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked how he's going to market SJR 24.
SENATOR DONLEY replied he hoped that they could talk to newspaper
editorial boards and other things like that and convince them that
it is really a good government proposal.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that one suggestion might be to have
something in the election pamphlet explaining SJR 24.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that the voter's guide has been pretty
flexible. You could probably do that in the pro statement in the
voter's guide.
Number 530
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated another point that was brought up by staff
was that to protect the Senate Secretary and Chief Clerk there
should be language for verifying contact. The chairman suggested
language specifying that legislators shall contact the Chief Clerk
and the Senate Secretary in written form.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that they could just insert "in written
form".
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that language would be inserted after
"indicated" on page 3, line 4.
SENATOR DONLEY stated what might happen, if SJR 24 passes this
session, that it would be alright if just the first section made it
on the ballot this year, if the legislation was focused down to
just that section.
Number 490
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to discharge SJR 24 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP added, "As amended, with small fiscal note."
Hearing no objection, stated SJR 24 was released from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|