Limitations on the introduction of legislative bills prepared by executive branch agencies, legislative interim committees, and the judicial branch.
Impact
If enacted, this bill would create a more structured procedure for legislative proposals originating from non-legislative branches of government. It emphasizes accountability and collaboration, potentially preventing bills that lack sufficient legislative support or sponsorship from reaching the floor for debate. This change could also impact the efficiency and volume of legislative business, as each bill would need to meet these new requirements before introduction, thereby streamlining the legislative workflow and promoting thorough vetting.
Summary
House Bill 1285 seeks to introduce limitations on the introduction of legislative bills that are prepared by executive branch agencies, legislative interim committees, or the judicial branch. The bill mandates that any proposed legislation must have at least one member of the legislative assembly identified as a sponsor, or it must be recommended by the legislative management alongside having at least one legislator as a co-sponsor. This aims to ensure that there is a legislative sponsor accountable for agency-produced content entering the legislative process.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding HB 1285 reflects a mix of support and concern. Proponents argue that it reinforces the principle of legislative accountability, ensuring that all proposed bills have the necessary backing from elected officials, thereby fortifying the legislative process. Conversely, critics worry that it may limit the ability of executive agencies and other branches to suggest important legislation that can address emerging issues, potentially preventing responsive governance and innovation in policymaking.
Contention
A notable point of contention stems from the perspective that imposing these restrictions could stifle the initiative of executive branches to propose necessary legislation. Some lawmakers and advocacy groups express concerns that the bill may limit timely responses to pressing state issues, particularly in areas requiring prompt legislative action. The tension between maintaining accountability and ensuring adaptive governance has generated significant debate within the legislative assembly regarding the appropriateness and necessity of such restrictions.
Declaring the directives of the judicial branch in the Claremont cases that the legislative and executive branches define an "adequate education," adopt "standards of accountability," and "guarantee adequate funding" of a public education are not binding on the legislative and executive branches.