Texas Senate Bill SCR6

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 1/12/11
• Enrolled: 1/19/11

Caption

Granting the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during the period beginning on Thursday, January 13, 2011, and ending on Tuesday, January 18, 2011.

Impact

If adopted, SCR6 would facilitate a brief but vital legislative pause during the specified dates. This would allow legislators to attend to pressing matters, engage with constituents, or deliberate internally on proposed legislation without the requirement of formal sessions. Such an adjournment is not uncommon as it recognizes the dynamic nature of legislative work and the need for alternate planning as sessions progress.

Summary

SCR6 is a concurrent resolution from the Texas Legislature that seeks permission from each house to adjourn for more than three days during a specified period from January 13, 2011, to January 18, 2011. This resolution is intended to allow legislative bodies to have flexibility in their scheduling and operations, reflecting the need for more extended breaks during legislative sessions when necessary. Under the Texas Constitution, neither house can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other, thus making this resolution an essential procedural step in managing legislative timelines effectively.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SCR6 is generally procedural and supportive as it seeks to expand legislative flexibility. There is no known significant opposition, as adjournments are standard practice within legislative operations. Lawmakers typically support measures that allow for practical scheduling adjustments, indicating a cooperative spirit among legislative members in managing the responsibilities of governance.

Contention

The primary point of contention might arise in situations where the need for extended breaks conflicts with legislative priorities or urgent matters that require immediate attention. However, during the discussion of SCR6, no considerable disagreements or debates about the necessity of such changes were highlighted, reflecting a consensus on its procedural significance.