Texas Senate Bill SCR11

Texas 2015 - 84th Regular

Caption

Granting the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during the period beginning on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, and ending on Tuesday, February 17, 2015.

Impact

The passage of SCR11 had a moderate yet essential impact on legislative operations, providing temporary reprieve from strict adjournment rules. By enabling both houses to adjourn for a longer duration, legislators could effectively utilize breaks for discussions, negotiations, or addressing urgent matters that required additional time without the pressure of immediate reconvening. This flexibility is particularly beneficial in a busy legislative season where time management is crucial for the number of bills being debated and passed.

Summary

SCR11, or Senate Concurrent Resolution 11, was introduced to grant the Texas legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during a specified period from February 11, 2015, to February 17, 2015. This resolution was in accordance with Section 17, Article III of the Texas Constitution, which typically restricts either house of the legislature from adjourning for longer than three days without mutual consent. The resolution sought to facilitate the legislative process by allowing flexibility in scheduling, particularly for extended breaks during critical periods.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SCR11 appeared largely positive, as it was unanimously adopted in both the Senate and the House. The resolution received significant support from legislators who appreciated the necessity of allowing more extended recess periods to enhance legislative efficiency and facilitate better communication among lawmakers. The lack of opposition indicates a shared understanding among members of the legislature regarding the importance of adaptability in legislative scheduling.

Contention

While SCR11 passed without any dissent, it implicitly reflects a broader discussion about legislative procedures and the balance of authority between the two houses. Although the resolution itself did not spark significant contention, discussions around such changes can often lead to debates on the delegation of powers and the mechanisms in place to ensure that both houses communicate effectively. The resolution primarily served as a procedural adjustment rather than introducing substantial policy changes.