Texas Senate Bill SCR44

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Enrolled: 4/27/11
• Passed: 5/9/11

Caption

Granting the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during the period beginning on Wednesday, April 21, 2011, and ending on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

Impact

The resolution is fundamentally procedural, allowing the legislature to manage its schedule without the constraints typically imposed by the Texas Constitution. This leniency can facilitate more effective legislative business by providing additional flexibility in scheduling discussions and voting on pending bills. It stands as an important tool for ensuring that legislators can adequately address their agenda and respond to emergent issues that may arise, particularly during busy legislative periods.

Summary

SCR44 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution presented during the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas. The resolution seeks permission from each house of the legislature to adjourn for a period exceeding three days. Specifically, it requests the ability to adjourn from April 21, 2011, to April 26, 2011, which is significant as it deviates from the typical requirement set by the Texas Constitution that prohibits adjournments longer than three days without mutual consent.

Sentiment

The sentiment regarding SCR44 is expectedly neutral as it is a procedural measure, lacking the contentious elements often associated with more substantive policy bills. Legislators recognize the necessity of flexibility in their legislative processes, thus likely perceiving this resolution as a routine, albeit essential, administrative action. There may be minor discussions about the implications of longer recess periods, but these are anticipated to be minimal given the nature of the resolution.

Contention

While SCR44 itself does not raise significant points of contention, the broader context of operational flexibility within the legislature could lead to discussions about accountability and the efficiency of the legislative process. Critics may voice concerns over extended adjournment as a potential disruption to transparency and citizen engagement, though such arguments are typically less pronounced in the context of procedural resolutions. The resolution's passage should not be opposed as it does not alter existing laws but rather facilitates legislative operational matters.