Is this the End of H.B. 4?
With the departure of Wayne Smith, the future of H.B. 4 is in doubt. Wayne was essentially the ticket to re-voting on the bill. He changed his vote to “no” with the intention of invoking a rule that allows anyone on the prevailing side to call a “do over” and ask for a re-vote in the next 3 legislative days. That would have been March 13 and 14. One has to wonder what was so urgent that he had to get out with just 2 weeks to go on that commitment. I suppose that the losing party will have to start twisting arms to get another H.B. 4 “no” voter to make a motion for a re-vote. For an excellent rundown of H.B. 4 check out this FSP page.
I will do whatever it takes to see a re-vote. If it is necessary, it may have to be reintroduced.
I just wonder if a more all-encompassing bill will come along and preempt it if it needs to be reintroduced.
The bills are already introduced. The Senate has the Peterson bill, the House has the GOP package and the Dem package, and what I understand is you can’t attach a bill as an amendment to another bill. None of the three bills above would accomplish HB 4’s goal.
But couldn’t the contents of H.B. 4 be an amendment? I don’t actually know, I’m asking. It seems that an amendment could basically say anything. I will defer to others about House rules, though.
Also, if I understood Kowalko’s position, he was holding out for a more substantive bill which might include the provisions in H.B. 4.
I assume that you are interested in the provisions of hb4 and not tied to the football that is HB4 itself.
The way I understand it, you can’t add the contents of one bill as an amendment to another. I’m not sure what would happen if it was introduced as part of a new bill.
I’ll look into it.
Obviously, I would prefer to see HB 4 proceed, because it is primed, out of committee, and could go through the House in minutes. I don’t even want to discuss the alternatives, but obviously I support the contents of the bill, even if it has to start over.