Hawaii 2024 Regular Session

Hawaii Senate Bill SCR51

Introduced
3/7/24  
Refer
3/14/24  
Introduced
3/7/24  
Report Pass
4/3/24  
Refer
3/14/24  
Engrossed
4/4/24  
Report Pass
4/3/24  
Refer
4/5/24  
Engrossed
4/4/24  

Caption

Requesting The Legislative Reference Bureau To Conduct A Study Of A Continuous Legislative Session, Extending The Legislative Session, And Adding Additional Recess Days.

Impact

If implemented, the findings of this study could significantly alter the operational dynamics of the Hawaii state legislature. A continuous legislative session might provide more opportunities for legislators to engage with constituents and address legislative matters throughout the year, thus potentially leading to more informed decision-making and quicker responses to urgent issues. Furthermore, extending the session and allowing for additional recess days may affect legislative processes and timelines concerning bill introductions, hearings, and approvals.

Summary

SCR51 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution requesting the Legislative Reference Bureau of Hawaii to conduct a comprehensive study on the possibilities of establishing a continuous legislative session, extending the current legislative session, and adding additional recess days. Currently, Hawaii's legislature operates on a part-time basis with only sixty session days, typically from mid-January to early May. The resolution seeks to explore whether making the legislature full-time could enhance efficiency, productivity, and transparency in governance.

Sentiment

The sentiments surrounding SCR51 appear to revolve around both support for and concerns about the implications of a full-time legislative body. Proponents argue that a continuous session would enhance legislative responsiveness and allow lawmakers to dedicate more time to complex issues, thus benefiting the state's governance. However, some opponents may express skepticism regarding the costs associated with full-time legislators, questioning whether the expected efficiency gains would justify those expenses.

Contention

Debate regarding SCR51 is likely to center on the feasibility of transitioning to a continuous legislative model and the associated financial implications. Questions may arise about the suitability of extending session lengths and the effectiveness of additional recess days in balancing legislative duties with public engagement. Ultimately, this resolution invites an examination of whether a full-time legislative approach is necessary and beneficial for the state, showcasing a fundamental tension between traditional legislative structures and the evolving needs of state governance.

Companion Bills

HI HCR55

Same As Requesting The Legislative Reference Bureau To Conduct A Study To Understand The Implementation Process For A Continuous Legislative Session And Its Relative Impacts On The State.

HI SR39

Same As Requesting The Legislative Reference Bureau To Conduct A Study Of A Continuous Legislative Session, Extending The Legislative Session, And Adding Additional Recess Days.

Similar Bills

CA ACA2

Legislature: retirement.

CA SB699

Legislature: constitutional course.

MI HR0041

A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.

CA AB599

Legislative Modernization Working Group.

CA AB478

Legislature: Member training.

CA AB1

Collective bargaining: Legislature.

AK SCR1

Art. Ii, Sec. 16, Const: Veto Recon

AK SCR13

Art. Ii, Sec. 16, Const:affirm Compliance