Louisiana House Bill HB181

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

(Constitutional Amendment) Provides relative to veto sessions

Impact

The amendment aims to streamline legislative processes by allowing the legislature to bypass consideration of certain bills during veto sessions if such a majority declaration is made. This change could lead to a more efficient management of vetoed legislation, especially in circumstances where it is deemed unnecessary to address specific bills or line items, possibly preventing lengthy deliberations over contentious issues that lack support.

Summary

House Bill 181 proposes a constitutional amendment concerning veto sessions in the Louisiana legislature. The primary change outlined in the bill is that the legislature would not be able to consider a bill or line item that a majority of the members from both houses declare in writing should not be considered. This system requires that such declarations be received by the presiding officers of each house at least five days before the veto session commences. Previously, the legislature was mandated to review all vetoed bills during a veto session.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 181 appears to be mixed. Supporters of the bill argue that it provides a necessary mechanism for the legislature to save time and resources during veto sessions, enhancing the legislative efficiency. On the other hand, critics may express concerns about the implications of allowing a simple majority to nullify consideration of bills, potentially sidelining important legislative discussions that could affect public interests.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding this bill include fears that the amendment could diminish the rigorous debate typically expected during veto sessions and reduce accountability within the legislative process. Detractors worry that allowing a majority to decide which bills are unworthy of consideration may lead to the exclusion of important or controversial legislation that deserves public scrutiny and debate. The balance between efficiency and thorough legislative review remains a central concern.