Provides that a motion the effect of which is to reject amendments recommended by a committee is not debatable
Impact
The implications of HR 85 on state laws primarily concern the procedural operations within the House of Representatives. If passed, the amendment would alter how the legislative body handles committee recommendations, potentially leading to faster decision-making processes. Supporters of the resolution believe that removing the debatable nature of such motions will reduce delays and allow the House to focus on more pressing matters. However, this change may limit opportunities for legislators to challenge or discuss committee recommendations, which could undermine thorough examination and debate on significant legislative proposals.
Summary
House Resolution 85, introduced by Representative Michael Jackson, seeks to amend existing House rules regarding the debatable nature of certain motions in legislative discussions. The primary aim of this resolution is to clarify that any motion aimed at rejecting amendments recommended by a committee during second reading is not subject to debate. This proposed change is intended to streamline discussions and decisions in the legislative process by minimizing lengthy debates over procedural motions. Proponents of this bill argue that it would enhance the efficiency of legislative proceedings and ensure a more orderly discussion of substantive issues.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding HR 85 appears to favor those advocating for procedural efficiency within the legislature. Supporters view the bill as a necessary reform that will improve the workflow of the House by eliminating unnecessary debate on procedural motions. Conversely, critics may raise concerns about the potential loss of discussion on committee amendments, arguing that it could diminish the legislative body's accountability and democratic engagement. Consequently, the discourse surrounding this resolution reflects a tension between the desire for efficiency in governance and the need for comprehensive debate in the legislative process.
Contention
Notable points of contention related to HR 85 include the balance between efficiency and deliberation within the legislative process. Opponents of the bill may argue that removing the ability to debate motions concerning committee amendments could curtail the rights of legislators to voice their concerns and objections. There may also be concerns about transparency and the thoroughness of legislative actions, as less debate could lead to less scrutiny of committee recommendations, potentially impacting the quality of the laws being discussed and passed.
Requires the Joint Legislative Committee on Capital Outlay to approve line of credit recommendations for nonstate entity projects (EG NO IMPACT GF EX See Note)
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; provision related to officeholders raising funds when facing a recall; modify, and require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; funds donated to a candidate for recall efforts; require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
A concurrent resolution recognizing wild rice as sacred and central to the culture and health of Indigenous Peoples in Minnesota and critical to the health and identity of all Minnesota citizens and ecosystems and establishing a commitment to passing legislation to protect wild rice and the freshwater resources upon which it depends.