Making provisions for the prospective of all legislative acts on a sliding scale based on the vote count when passed by the house of representatives.
Impact
This bill significantly alters the legislative process by incorporating a mechanism that essentially links the durability of a law to the level of consensus it garners in the initial voting. This could lead to increased stability for highly supported laws while allowing for easier repeal of those that pass with lower thresholds of support. Consequently, it could impact the legislative environment in New Hampshire by potentially limiting the longevity of laws passed with weak support, fostering a need for renewed debates on contentious issues over a shorter time frame.
Summary
House Bill 1495 is a legislative proposal that seeks to modify how laws enacted by the legislature are designed with a prospective repeal clause depending on the voting margins at the time of passage in the House of Representatives. The bill stipulates that various durations for these prospective repeals will be applied across three categories based on the percentage of support from present members. If a bill receives at least 80% of votes in favor, it will have a repeal period of 10 years; for 65-79%, a 7-year period; and for 51-64%, a 3-year period. In situations where the vote count cannot be determined, such as voice votes, the 3-year period will also apply.
Sentiment
The response to HB 1495 has sparked discussions around the efficiency and effectiveness of the legislative process. Proponents argue that embedding prospective repeals based on legislative support is a sensible approach to ensuring that only laws with broad consensus endure. Critics, however, may express concerns that such legislation could undermine the ability to enact necessary outcomes by creating an environment of instability where laws are overly susceptible to repeal, thus creating hurdles for sustained policy initiatives.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding HB 1495 include discussions about the implications of predetermined repeal periods which could constrain the legislature's capacity to address issues robustly in the long term. Critics warn that this may lead to a potential overemphasis on attaining high percentages of votes rather than focusing on the substantive merit of the legislation itself. Additionally, the requirement for a certain number of registered voters to initiate a repeal further complicates the process and may create obstacles for grassroots movements seeking legislative change.
Relative to building a new legislative parking garage and making an appropriation therefor, renaming the capital project overview committee, and establishing the joint legislative parking garage oversight commission.
Housing: landlord and tenants; reuse of certain tenant screening reports; allow. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1972 PA 348 (MCL 554.601) & adds secs. 1e, 1f, 1g & 1h.