Resolves that a committee be appointed to notify the House that the Senate has convened and organized and is prepared to transact business.
Impact
The impact of SR1 on state laws is limited as it primarily addresses internal legislative procedures rather than altering existing statutes or creating new laws. By facilitating organized communication between the Senate and the House, the resolution supports the smooth operation of legislative activities. However, its indirect effects on the legislative process can contribute to the efficiency of law-making by ensuring that procedural matters are handled appropriately from the outset of session activities.
Summary
Senate Resolution No. 1 (SR1), proposed by Senator Broome, serves as a procedural resolution to appoint a committee responsible for notifying the House of Representatives that the Senate has officially convened and is organized. This resolution is part of the standard legislative process, ensuring that both chambers of the legislature are aware of each other's organizational status and readiness to proceed with legislative business. It is a formal step taken at the beginning of legislative sessions to foster communication and cooperation between the two bodies of the state legislature.
Sentiment
The sentiment around SR1 is largely neutral, as it pertains to routine legislative operations rather than a contentious or impactful policy decision. Given its nature as a procedural resolution, it was expected to receive broad support within the Senate, with minimal opposition. Generally, legislatures move quickly on such measures to enable further discussion on substantive bills and issues that will follow throughout the session.
Contention
Since SR1 deals strictly with organizational matters and does not venture into policy debates, there are no notable points of contention. The resolution is typically welcomed by members of both the Senate and the House as a necessary step to proceed with legislative business. Its simplicity and procedural focus mean that it does not engage in the more contentious aspects of governance, such as budget allocations or social policy, which often lead to debates.