Bill to Law for 99

From Idea to Bill to Law

From Idea .....

To Bill .....

To Law

The Legislative Process

Arizona

State Senator Randall Gnant

From Idea to Bill to Law

Phoenix, Arizona

Portions of this book may be reproduced or otherwise

used provided the publisher is notified and acknowl-

edgment is given. Commercial uses are prohibited.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...............................................

Introduction .........................................................

It Starts With the Constitution .............................

The Constitution and the Legislature....................

Arizona and the "The Citizen Legislature" ..........

Let's Start at the End ............................................

The Interim Period ...............................................

Where Do Ideas For Bills Come From? ..............

The Sponsor of the Bill .......................................

The Role of Committees and Committee Staff ...

The Role of Majority and Minority Staff ............

The Role of the Legislative Council ...................

The "Intro Set" ....................................................

What are "Vehicle Bills"? ...................................

The "Hopper" ......................................................

First Reading of the Bill .....................................

Second Reading of Bills .....................................

The Role of the Committee Chairman ...............

Before the Committee Meeting ..........................

Amendments .......................................................

The "Strike Everything" amendment ..................

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Committee Meeting ..............................................

Committee bills

Testimony

Procedure

Voting

The Subcommittee .......................................................

The Role of the Rules Committee ...............................

Consent Calendar .........................................................

The Caucus ..................................................................

Calendar of the Committee of the Whole ....................

Committee of the Whole ..............................................

Debate

Amendments

Procedures

Voting

Senate Calendar ...........................................................

Engrossing ...................................................................

Third Reading ..............................................................

Motion to Reconsider ..................................................

Bills that Pass on Third Reading .................................

Senate Bill Summary ..................................................

Crossover Week ...........................................................

Consideration of House Bills ......................................

The Conference Committee.........................................

Sine Die........................................................................

The Governor's Desk ...................................................

... And Let's End at the End ........................................

A Final Word ...............................................................

Appendix A -- The Appropriations Process ................

Appendix B -- About Lobbyists .................................

Appendix C -- Special Sessions..... ............................

Appendix D - - Index and Glossary ...........................

From Idea to Bill to Law

Acknowledgments

The first edition of this booklet was published in December of

1995 and was quickly "sold out"(if you can use that expression

for a free booklet). Legislators, staff members, lobbyists, busi-

ness and industry people and members of the general public all

seemed eager to learn more about the process by which we make

laws.

As the supply of the first edition rapidly

dwindled, offers came in to fund a second,

third and now a fourth, edition. Those

groups you see featured on the back cover

made generous contributions to this fourth

edition. Absolutely no government money

has been used. My goal has always been

to be able to put this booklet into the hands

of any Arizona citizen who wanted it. We

are now at over 15,000 copies and count-

ing.

Special thanks for support during this project must go to Shirley

Wheaton, former Secretary of the Senate. Shirley was the Sec-

retary of the Senate from 1979 to 1998 and was around in other

capacities before then. From beginning to end she was always

available to answer questions and often provided unique insights

into why things are done the way they are done. Shirley will-

ingly put up with my inquiries as to "which rule covers this or

that" and her encouragement kept me going more than once when

I was thinking of "hanging it up."

A number of Senators and Senate staff members were kind enough

to read various drafts as the project developed. Some read very

From Idea to Bill to Law

early drafts; some lent their assistance as the booklet neared

completion; after the first edition some made suggestions for this

edition. Even so, some of the most subtle parliamentary moves

and political maneuvers have been left out. I am grateful to each

of the many who took the time to lend a hand.

Early in the project I spent some time with the staff of the Ari-

zona Capitol Times. The Creighton family has been covering the

capitol since territorial days and Ned and Diana Creighton, along

with their excellent staff, were ready, willing and able to fire up

their computer or check through back issues for historical data.

During the 1999 session, freshman Representative Jeff Hatch-

Miller made numerous editing comments. This work is better

for his efforts. Previous versions have dealt only with practices

in the Senate; Mr. Hatch-Miller convinced me to make the book

applicable to both houses of the Legislature.

I have every confidence that what follows is an accurate por-

trayal of the Senate's role in how an idea moves through the leg-

islative process to perhaps become a law in Arizona. Any errors,

however, continue to be mine alone.

State Senator

Randall Gnant

Phoenix, Arizona

February, 2000

From Idea to Bill to Law

Introduction

By the end of my first session as a member of the Arizona Sen-

ate, (the Spring of 1995) I felt that I had a pretty good handle on

how things were done. After all, on-the-job training under pres-

sure is still a great teacher. But there were still areas in which I

was not comfortable -- questions on some of the subtle nuances,

and questions on why some things were done the way they were

done.

I felt that if I could write about the process in such a way that

someone outside the process could understand it, I would, by

necessity, have a pretty complete understanding myself. Hence

the following pages.

Anyone reading this booklet should understand that, with the

exception of a few guidelines set forth in the Arizona Constitu-

tion, the entire legislative process is governed by Senate and

House of Representative Rules which are adopted by a majority

of the currently sitting Senate and House members. The process

today is not the same as it has been in the past; the process may

change in the future. For example, it was not always the case that

bills had to have a public hearing before they could be passed; it

is the current class of legislators who believe that it is in the

public interest to have this requirement. Even the harshest critics

of the legislative process will admit that the process has never

been more open to public scrutiny than it is today.

I have learned one significant lesson from my research into how

an idea becomes a bill and perhaps a law. While there are rules

From Idea to Bill to Law

and a certain order to the legislative process, there are also nu-

merous methods and opportunities to avoid the rules and disrupt

the order of things. It seems, at times, that there is at least one

exception for every rule.

Yet, throughout it all, there is a certain equanimity on the part of

the legislators, the staff, the lobbyists, the press and the general

public. As part of an American legislative system that is now

well into its third century, the process, however complicated,

cumbersome, and convoluted, nevertheless seems to work. That

it does work, is what counts in the end.

From Idea to Bill to Law

From Idea To Bill To Law

It Starts With the Constitution...

The American form of government, begun over two centuries

ago, was certainly a new and bold experiment. At the core of this

new philosophy of government was the concept that the govern-

ment could do certain things and could not do other things. Our

federal constitution begins with the words, "We the People..."

As our country grew and territories prepared to come into the

Union as states, delegates from each territory would meet to de-

sign their state constitution. Following the federal tradition, state

governments were designed to have only those rights granted to

it by the people of the soon-to-be state.

As the number of states grew, the delegates of succeeding terri-

torial conventions had more and more examples of state consti-

tutions from which to choose. In addition, the delegates, often

for political reasons, had to be in tune with the sentiments and

attitudes then in vogue with the territorial voters. The voters,

after all, would have to approve the proposed new constitution.

The Arizona constitutional convention took place in Phoenix over

sixty-one days in the fall of 1910. There were already 46 states

and Arizona and New Mexico were identified as states 47 and

48.

During the convention, the delegates borrowed heavily from the

constitution of the state of Washington which had come into the

Union just a short time earlier. They also added provisions for

such things as the initiative and the referendum and for the recall

of elected officials.

From Idea to Bill to Law

At the time, some thought these procedures to be harmful to the

delicately balanced system which had worked for well over a

century. One of these people was President William Howard Taft,

who vetoed the Congressional resolution approving the new Ari-

zona constitution because it contained a provision for the recall

of judges. Congress and the President approved a second reso-

lution which said that Arizona could only become a state if they

adopted an amendment removing judicial officers from the pro-

vision of the recall.

This the voters of Arizona did. On February 14, 1912 Arizona

became the 48th State in the Union. But there was a limit on the

rights that our early citizens would yield to the state government.

They wanted the ability to recall judges if they saw fit to do so.

As soon as we became a state, recall of judges was added back to

the Constitution.

The Constitution of the State of Arizona is the first place to look

as we begin our look at the legislative process.

The Constitution and the Legislature

Limited Powers

Article IV of the Arizona Constitution deals with the legislative

department of government.

Lest there be any doubt at all about who is ultimately in charge

of Arizona, Article IV, Part 1, Section 1 makes it perfectly clear:

"The legislative authority of the state shall be

vested in a legislature, consisting of a senate and a

house of representatives, but the people reserve

the power to propose laws and amendments to the

From Idea to Bill to Law

constitution and to enact or reject such laws and

amendments at the polls, independently of the

legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their

own option, the power to approve or reject at the

polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act,

of the legislature."

That's about as clear as you can get. While we elect a legislature

and while we expect them to ably represent us, Arizonans still

have the ultimate authority to initiate legislative action if they so

choose and they also retain the authority to reject legislative ac-

tion of which they disapprove.

Rules and Procedures

From time to time we read in the newspapers, or hear on the

radio, about policies and procedures and practices in the Arizona

legislature. Most often that which we read or hear is critical of

how the legislature goes about its business. Words such as "fair"

and "open" and "level playing field" are used, as if to imply that

the legislature should operate in a significantly different manner

than it does.

Everyone is welcome to criticize, of course, and both newcom-

ers and longtime veterans of the political scene will admit that

there are always ways to improve the legislative process. But

the operation of the legislature, both the House and the Senate,

is dictated by the Arizona Constitution, by laws passed since

Statehood, by custom and by tradition.

For example, Article IV, Part 2, Section 8 of our state constitu-

tion says, "Each house, when assembled, shall choose its own

officers... and determine its own rules of procedure." The Con-

stitution goes on to make some specific requirements, such as

From Idea to Bill to Law

keeping a journal or prescribing a method for expelling mem-

bers or providing privilege from arrest during session, but for

the most part, the authors of the Constitution, and the public since

then, have determined that each branch of the legislature should

adopt its own rules and procedures for conducting its business.

In the Senate, each legislative term begins by temporarily adopt-

ing the rules of the previous term. Changes to the rules can be

proposed by any member of the Senate. Rules can be added,

amended, or adopted at any time. Because Senators make their

own rules, they can suspend them if they choose to do so.

During the early days of each term the minority and majority

caucuses will discuss proposed rule changes. Then the full Sen-

ate will adopt a set of rules for the rest of the term. These rules

are published in booklet form and are available to the general

public. Any subsequent changes are also published.

More about the rules of the Senate later on.

Arizona and "The Citizen Legislature"

Interestingly enough, the constitution of the State of Arizona is

quiet on the question of how long, or how hard, the members of

the legislature should work.

The concept of the "citizen legislature" goes back to Colonial

times and is based on the precept that if lawmakers have to go

home and work under the laws they created, they will be more

careful about passing laws.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Then, too, there wasn't all that much for legislatures to do two

hundred years ago. The legislature could meet in January when

the ground was too frozen to put in crops, could debate and so-

cialize and pass what few laws needed passing -- and they could

still be home in plenty of time for the spring plowing.

Modern state government is considerably more complicated than

state government of two hundred years ago. In fact, it is more

complicated than even the federal government was just one hun-

dred years ago.

The Arizona legislature appropriated nearly 12 billion dollars

for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. But, the legislature also dealt

with another $10 billion in unappropriated monies. Over 1000

bills were filed in the last session -- many of them unnecessary

perhaps -- but the unnecessary bills were quickly disposed of

without wasting much time or effort. Over 300 bills made it all

the way through the legislative process.

Consider also, that lobbyists work twelve months of the year.

The various state agency heads work twelve months of the year.

The staff members of the House and Senate work year around.

Hardly anyone wants the Arizona legislature to go the way of the

California legislature -- high salaries, large staffs, extensive perks

and privileges, and year round legislative sessions. However, as

Arizona continues to grow the nature of government will be-

come increasingly more complex.

And it will become harder and harder for part time legislators to

keep up with what is going on.

From Idea to Bill to Law

As we will see beginning in the next chap-

ter, Arizona depends on having legislators

who devote far more than just "part time"

to their legislative jobs. Indeed, the ability

of the full legislature to function at all is

due in large respect to those men and

women who work so hard during the so

called "interim period."

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

Let’s Start at the End....

Any discussion of the legislative process must start somewhere.

It would seem logical to start with the beginning of the legisla-

tive session. Sessions start in January, public interest is highest

when the legislature is in session, and most of the drama and

excitement of the legislative process takes place when the legis-

lature is in session.

But, just as the Super Bowl half-time show, with its lights, pyro-

technics and mechanical wonders takes months to plan and ex-

ecute -- so too does a legislative session have its roots months

and months before each second Monday in January.

In fact, the best place to begin is at the end of a legislative ses-

sion....

Dawn breaks slowly over the first day in months that the legisla-

ture is not in session. It's quiet at the Capitol. Wandering through

the Senate building is like prowling the streets of a city in one of

those black and white 1950's movies where the earth has been

invaded from outer space and mass evacuation has taken place.

The floor of the Senate is littered with celebratory confetti; the

desks are still covered with last minute agendas and with com-

promise amendments to final pieces of legislation. Throughout

the building wastebaskets are filled to overflowing with soft drink

cans, styrofoam coffee cups and bags and wrappers from local

fast food restaurants. Here and there office lights are still on --

their occupants too interested in leaving to take time to turn them

off.

The legislators have gone home.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Only staff members, hard core members of the press corps, and

the pigeons remain.

The author makes no connection between

these three groups. The reader is free to.

It's the morning after sine die*.

* See Glossary for several definitions of this Latin phrase.

The period from roughly May to January, when the legislature is

not in session, is known as "the interim period".

With the adjournment of a legislative session, virtually everyone

takes a couple of weeks off to rest and reflect on the accomplish-

ments and failures of the session just completed. Some legisla-

tors will take even more time off -- they will be heard from only

sparingly, if at all, until the beginning of the next session.

No value judgment is implied here. Our leg-

islature is, after all, supposed to be "part

time", and some Senate and House mem-

bers do need to earn a living. Some rural

legislators live so far from the Capitol that

any sort of regular attendance would be

expensive as well as inconvenient. And not

all legislators are naturally interested in

what happens during the interim period.

For an increasingly large number of legislators, however, the sum-

mer and fall months are nearly as busy as the months when the

legislature is in session.

For there is always a good deal of work to be done.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Interim Period

The interim period can occupy as much of a legislator's time as

he is willing to commit. For members of leadership, there is

work to be done nearly every day. For the rank and file mem-

bers, there is plenty of work to be done, but members are free to

work hard, moderately hard or not at all during the so called

"off" months.

At the risk of over generalizing, interim activities can be grouped

into one of four three categories:

1) Constituent service -- While most Senators try

hard to deal with constituent concerns on a timely

basis, the time demands during a legislative session

sometimes make it difficult to deal with both

constituent problems and proposed legislation at

the same time. With apologies to the constituents,

non-emergency constituent service may, of

necessity, be pushed to those days and weeks

immediately following adjournment of the regular

session.

2) Serving on "Interim" Committees -- Although

a bill may be passed into law by the legislature,

sometimes debate and testimony during the

legislative process will point out areas which need

to be considered, but cannot be considered

immediately due to the time constraints of the

regular session. And sometimes an otherwise

"good" bill has problems which prevent the bill

from being passed by the legislature.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Each year the legislature passes bills that require the

House and the Senate to establish interim committees

to gather facts and make recommendations on areas of

particular interest. It is not unusual to have several

dozen interim committees.

An "interim" committee" is a committee that meets

during the months when the legislature is not in session.

Most interim committees can accomplish their purpose

in two or three meetings.

While most people refer to the interim committees

simply as “study committees”, there are technically at

least three types of interim committees:

1) The "joint" committee -- A joint committee

is composed of members appointed by the

President of the Senate and the Speaker of the

House of Representatives. There is generally

a requirement to "report" findings to the full

House and the full Senate prior to the beginning

of the next regular session of the legislature.

These findings may include recommendations

for specific legislation. The joint committees

hold public meetings, hear testimony and

consider proposals, but they do not "pass" bills.

Joint committees may be created by an act of

the legislature, or they may be created by

agreement between the President of the Senate

and the Speaker of the House of

Representatives.

2) The "select" committee -- Similar to the joint

committee, but with the addition of one or more

From Idea to Bill to Law

members "selected" from the private

sector.

3) The "ad hoc" committee -- These

committees may be composed of only

Senate members or only House members.

They may or may not have members from

the private sector. Ad hoc committees may

be formed by the President or the Speaker.

With permission from the President or the

Speaker, ad hoc committees may even be

formed by committee chairmen or

individual legislators.

Not surprisingly, there are occasional de-

viations from the descriptions of the types

of committees just discussed. Historians of

the Senate tell of joint committees without

any legislative members, and "advisory"

committees that may recommend legisla-

tion, and "task forces" which lead to pro-

posed new laws. For the most part, though,

the descriptions I've given should cover

most cases.

3) The final outlet for time during the interim is in

actually helping to draft bills for the next

legislative session -- The summer and fall months

are an ideal time to begin gathering information

and discussing options for legislation which a

member wants introduced in the next session of

the full legislature.

From Idea to Bill to Law

As summer turns into fall at the Capitol, members should be

caught up on constituent service and the schedule of interim

committee meetings should be nearing completion. But, as the

next chapter describes, there are still more demands on the time

of legislators who work during the interim. For, with January

and the beginning of a new session nearing, efforts intensify

from a number of sources -- efforts aimed at drafting bills, --

and new laws.

Where Do the Ideas for Bills Come From?

It is easy to assume that with the adjournment the legislature,

the legislative feast should be over and the plate should be clean.

Proposed new laws were either accepted or rejected. It should

be time to relax.

In reality, the legislative “feast” is more like a quick snack at the

drive thru. Even as the legislators head home from one session

they are making notes on legislation for the next session. Here’s

why:

1. Clarification of recently enacted laws. -- New

laws don't always work out as intended. With the

recent trend to shorter legislative sessions, and

with over 1000 bills to be considered during each

session, it should come as no surprise that each

year legislation is passed which does not have all

of the i's dotted or the t's crossed. (This is not to

say that when sessions lasted 160-170 days all

laws were perfect.)

Sometimes the need for corrective change is

known before the bill is even passed, but there is

simply not enough time to make the change. Most

often, these minor changes are noticed when state

From Idea to Bill to Law

officials begin preparing to put the new law into

effect. Once in a while it is even later that the

"glitches" are discovered. Occasionally the law is

interpreted differently than its sponsors intended;

sometimes there can be a conflict with other laws

and sometimes what appeared to be a solution to a

problem on paper doesn't work in the real world.

When these shortcomings are discovered, they are

accumulated and, as the time for a new session

approaches, a piece of "cleanup" legislation is

proposed in the form of a technical corrections bill.

Because the required changes are generally easy

to make and are almost always non controversial,

"clean up" bills are often introduced very early in

the subsequent legislative session and they usually

move quickly through the process. The bill is

generally introduced by the chairman of the

committee which dealt with the earlier legislation

or by the sponsor of the earlier legislation.

2. Reconsideration of bills that haven’t yet made

it into law. -- One of the hardest things newcomers

to the political process have to learn is that only

rarely do significant changes to our laws make it

through the first time around. The legislature is

nothing if not deliberative. Many will not have

time to consider significant change while a session

is actually underway. The interim period is a good

time to pause and reflect why a bill failed the

previous session and it’s a good time to rally

support for another try during the next session.

There are other sources for proposed new laws. While all Senate

bills must be introduced by one or more Senators (and, of course,

From Idea to Bill to Law

all House bills must be introduced by one or more members of

the House of Representatives) less than one-third of all new bills

are the original ideas of the sponsoring legislators. This is the

largest single source of new bills, but it is still a minority of the

total. Legislators get their ideas for new bills from a number of

sources. Following are just a few:

1) The results of interim committees. See the

previous chapter.

2) Court decisions. From time to time courts

(either state or federal) may rule portions of

previously passed legislation to be

unconstitutional. A court may also interpret a law

in a manner which a legislator believes is

incorrect or unintended. New laws to try a new

approach or fine tune or clarify the old law may

result.

3). Another large source of new bills is from state

departments and agencies of both the executive

and the judicial branch. Directors in these

organizations will come to the legislature (either

the House of Representatives or the Senate) for

new or modified legislation for a number of

reasons.

Sometimes existing laws need changing. As our

society changes, our need for specific laws

changes. Some legislation becomes out of date,

other laws may need to be modified, either

weakened or strengthened, to keep up with

changing times. Once again the departments and

state agencies will propose changes in legislation

which will most often be introduced by an

appropriate committee chairman.

From Idea to Bill to Law

4) Ideas for new legislation also come from

political subdivisions. Counties, cities, towns,

school districts and special districts will also come

to the legislature to modify existing laws. But they

will also seek new legislation to help them best

represent their constituencies.

5) Individual constituents propose new laws.

Sometimes legislators will agree with the

suggestions of the constituent and will work hard

for the constituent as the bill makes its way through

the process. Sometimes the legislator will

introduce a bill on behalf of a constituent or

constituent group but will do little or nothing to

move the bill along. And sometimes the legislator

will introduce a bill to satisfy a vocal constituent

and then actively work behind the scenes to see

that the bill dies somewhere along the road.

6) Finally, business and special interest groups are

the prime movers behind proposals for some new

laws. Believe it or not, this is often the smallest

group of bills in terms of numbers, but it is these

bills which often receive the most public attention.

Most of these special interest groups will be

represented by one or more of Arizona's 7,500

registered lobbyists, but each year there is

legislation suggested by very small interests who

do not have professional lobbyists guiding them.

When lobbyists are involved, the legislation is

generally presented in draft form to a sponsoring

legislator. Here, too, it is important to have the

appropriate committee chairman "on board" with

the proposed legislation. But, to a greater extent

From Idea to Bill to Law

than with departmental or agency legislation, the

prime sponsors of the bill come from rank and file

legislators.

When lobbying organizations are not involved,

when an idea comes from a single company or a

small group of involved constituents, it is generally

the case that the proponents will have an idea of

what they want to accomplish but that idea will

not have been actually developed into proposed

legislation. If this is the case, the proponents will

find a legislator to sponsor and help craft a bill.

7) Miscellaneous sources of new bills include audit

recommendations, news media investigations or

special reports, national legislative organizations

such as the National Conference of State

Legislators, the American Legislative Exchange

Council, or the Council of State Governments. In

short, anyone, anywhere, with an idea stands a

chance of finding a means to have a proposed new

law introduced.

The following table shows the number of bills introduced and

passed by the Arizona legislature for each of the years since 1989.

(Special session legislation is not included.)

Year Senate House Total Passed

1999 419 706 1125 353

1998 431 698 1129 304

1997 468 577 1045 307

1996 425 571 996 385

1995 407 550 957 309

1994 565 598 1163 380

1993 433 393 826 261

From Idea to Bill to Law

1992 545 597 1142 369

1991 476 503 979 335

1990 559 692 1251 417

1989 468 665 1133 322

Since 1960 the percentage of bills introduced which ultimately

passed has ranged from 18.3% in 1963 to 45% in 1986.

Source: “Senate and House End of Session Bill Summaries”

The Sponsor of the Bill

Only elected legislators or a committee of legislators can intro-

duce bills. Bills introduced in the Senate are sponsored by one

or more Senators (or a Senate committee). Bills introduced in

the House are introduced by one or more Representatives. Bills

cannot be introduced by the governor, by state agencies or by

any other person or organization.

Except for budget bills, or bills which need to be “fast tracked”,

or bills which are considered particularly critical, identical bills

are generally not introduced in both houses.

In most cases, the original sponsor of the bill will circulate the

bill to get signatures of “cosponsors.” Legislators can sign on as

“Prime sponsors” or as “Additional sponsors”, depending on their

depth of feeling for the bill. Sponsors can be from either or both

political parties, and they can be from either branch of the legis-

lature. It is not unheard of for some popular bills to have a ma-

jority of one or the other house sponsoring them.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Believe it or not, having a majority of the

body cosponsor a bill is no guarantee that

the bill will pass. Keep reading.

While in some cases who sponsors the bill is not important,

there are many cases in which having the right sponsor is criti-

cal.

For example, bills which pertain to a single legislative district,

or to two or three legislative districts, have a much better chance

of passage if they are sponsored by legislators from the areas

affected. There is a good deal of respect in both the House and

the Senate for individual legislators where activities in their dis-

tricts are concerned. If affected legislators are not sponsors,

they should, at a minimum, be aware of the bill. If legislators

from affected districts are against the bill, the bill is likely to

have a hard time getting the votes necessary to pass.

It is also a political fact of life that a number of sponsors should,

whenever possible, be from the majority party. This is not to

say that bills sponsored solely by members of the minority party

do not pass. However, there is limited time to consider bills

during each legislative session, and it is natural that first priori-

ties will go to bills which further the agenda of the majority

party.

Obviously, sponsorship of a bill by a member of the House or

Senate leadership will have an impact. Each session there are

members of the majority party who vote against bills sponsored

by their leadership but it would be naive not to think that lead-

ership weight behind a bill can be very influential.

Perhaps the most important players in the sponsorship process,

however, are the committee chairmen.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

State departments or agencies develop working relationships with

their respective committee chairmen, often meeting on a regular

basis when the legislature is not in session. The same is true

with lobbyists and representatives of special interest groups. A

committee chairman will almost always understand the areas af-

fected by his committee as well as, or better than, any other leg-

islator. It is natural, therefore, for department and agency heads

to seek them out as sponsors.

There is a more practical reason for efforts to solicit the sponsor-

ship of the appropriate committee chairman on a bill. As we’ll

discuss in a later section, after a bill is “first read” in the House

or “second read” in the Senate, it is referred to a committee. If

the committee chairman elects not to hold hearings on the bill,

the chances of that bill becoming law are lessened considerably.

There is one final item regarding sponsorship of a bill. Not by

law or by rule, but by tradition, a sponsor “controls” his bill. He

can often influence amendments to the bill and he can ask that

progress of a bill be slowed. He can even ask for his bill to be

killed. More on this later.

A Senator can also sponsor a bill but can

indicate that the bill is being introduced

“By Request”. When “By Request” is

added to the bill the Senator is generally

saying:

“I haven’t had time to read and study this

bill and just because I am sponsoring it does

not necessarily mean I will support it,” or

“I don’t care whether this bill goes any-

where or not. I’m only sponsoring it be-

cause someone asked me to and I had my

reasons for not turning down the request.”

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Role of Committees and Committee Staff

Permanent (or “standing”) committees are adopted by the Sen-

ate as a whole (in the Senate - Rule 7 (A)), but in practice the

number and the names of the committees are determined by the

presiding officer of each house (the Speaker of the House and

the President of the Senate) and ratified by each body. The presi-

ding officer also assigns legislators to each committee. (in the

Senate - Rule 2 (I)). Committees may vary in size, but each

committee will have roughly the same percentage of members

from each party as that party has in it house. Thus, each commit-

tee will have a majority of members from the majority party.

Most committees have 8 or 9 members, but there may be in-

stances where a committee could have five or even fewer mem-

bers. The Appropriations Committee in the Senate is usually the

largest committee; usually with 15 members.

In addition to the legislative members of the committee, each

committee has a full-time paid staff member. There is one full

time analyst for each committee and there is usually an intern

during the legislative session. Committee staff is nonpartisan.

Once a legislator has agreed to sponsor a bill, one of the first

steps is often to go to the appropriate committee staff. Staff can

almost always provide significant information, such as previous

attempts to do what the proposed bill does, what happened to

those attempts, who the major interests pro and con are likely to

be, and so on. Sometimes legislators will take just an idea for

legislation to staff and staff will take over management of the

bill drafting on behalf of the legislator.

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Role of Majority and Minority Staff

In addition to the nonpartisan committee staff, each caucus also

has a small number of full time partisan staff members. There is

a Republican caucus and a Democratic caucus. These staff mem-

bers also play a critical role in researching and gathering infor-

mation on prospective legislation. In addition, if a legislator

wishes, partisan staff provides advice, strategic planning, legal

counsel and public relations services.

The Role of the Legislative Council

The Legislative Council was formed in 1953 as a result of an act

of the Legislature. (Laws 1953, chapter 2) Legislative Council

performs a number of duties for the legislature, such as main-

taining the computer system, but its main function is to assist in

the preparation of proposed legislation. Legislative Council also

contains the Ombudsman’s Citizen Aid Office.

All proposed bills are drafted and prepared for introduction by

the Legislative Council staff. Legislative Council may be re-

quested to prepare a proposed bill draft by any legislator, by par-

tisan staff at the direction of a legislator, or by direction from a

committee of the Senate.

Many “secrets” reside for a time with the Senate staff groups or

with Legislative Council. Work being done on proposed legisla-

tion is absolutely privileged to the legislator doing that work un-

less the legislator indicates otherwise. This is done so the Sena-

tor may “test the waters” with fellow Senators or with constitu-

ents or interest groups.

If it appears likely that the bill will not have an appreciable level

of support, the draft bill can be substantially revised or even qui-

etly abandoned.

From Idea to Bill to Law

If similar work is being done by another legislator, it may be the

case that committee staff or Legislative Council staff will, in gen-

eral terms, advise the legislator that similar legislation is under

consideration, but the other legislator is never identified without

his permission. In most cases legislators are perfectly willing to

work with other legislators to draft the best possible laws, but

there is nothing that says that a “bombshell” bill cannot be re-

searched, written and introduced without the knowledge of most

of the legislature. There is also nothing to prevent two legisla-

tors from introducing essentially similar bills.

In “Leg (pronounced ‘ledge’) Council” the actual legal language

is constructed and entered into the main legislative computer. It

is often necessary to check back with staff members or the spon-

sor several times to be sure the language does what the sponsor

intended. This may require several drafts of the proposed legis-

lation.

Leg Council performs a number of crucial tasks often not appre-

ciated by the legislators or the general public. For example, if a

particular change is proposed for one statute, Leg Council is ex-

pected to know how that proposed change might affect any of

the thousands of other statutes on the books. Leg Council is also

expected to know how language is used in other statutes, so the

chances of unclear meanings or double meanings are reduced.

Most importantly, legal staff in Leg Council may suggest changes

intended to help the proposal pass Constitutional muster. For ex-

ample, the Constitution (Article IV, Part 2, Section 13) requires

that, “Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters prop-

erly connected therewith...” If proposed legislation obviously cov-

ers two or more subjects, Leg Council will advise the sponsor

that the bill must be trimmed, split into two or more bills, or face

a potentially successful challenge on Constitutional grounds.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Rules Committee is the official arbiter

of these matters, but as a matter of courtesy

Leg Council sometimes advises Senators of

potential problems in order to save time and

inconvenience later on.

The “Intro Set”

When all questions have been answered, and final language has

been agreed to, the bill is finally drafted. The next step is for

Leg Council to prepare an “intro set”. An intro set has five main

parts:

1. The Title of the Bill — The official title of the bill generally

uses words such as “amending” or “establishing” or “creating”,

etc. The title must contain any and all existing statutes which

have to be modified to accommodate the provisions of the pro-

posed bill.

In fact, the framers of our state constitution felt the title was so

important that it said in Article IV, Part 2, Section 13, that “Ev-

ery act shall embrace but one subject... if any subject shall be

embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such

act shall be void...”

So, this means that any bill can have only

one subject and the title has to say what that

subject is.

2. The Short Title — The short title of the bill is how the bill will

generally be known as it goes through the legislative process.

This title will be five or fewer words that uniquely describes the

bill. The short title has no legal significance.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

Sometimes bills acquire humorous or sar-

castic unofficial “short titles.” On occasion

these unofficial titles will be used so often

that legislators will not recognize a bill by

its official short title.

3. The Enacting Clause — This portion of the bill must contain

the words “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Ari-

zona...” (Article IV, Part 2, Section 24)

4. The Text of the Bill — Draft language for the bill is prepared

on pages with line numbers down the left-hand side. This is so

reference to a particular portion can quickly be made. New or

additional statutory language is inserted in all capital letters.

Language to be eliminated appears with a line through it. A very

short mythical example:

1 The speed limit on INTER

2 STATE highways shall be

3 no more than seventy

4 SEVENTY-FIVE miles per

5 hour.

5. A cover sheet for sponsors to sign.

Once the “intro set” has been prepared it is delivered to the spon-

soring legislator.

Between the time the legislator receives the “intro set” until the

deadline for filing new bills, the legislator is free to circulate the

proposed bill for additional sponsoring signatures. Not all legis-

lators want additional signatures on each piece of legislation they

plan to sponsor, but in general, a large number of sponsoring

signatures serves as a signal that there is widespread support for

the proposed legislation.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

If it appears likely that the bill will not have an appreciable level

of support, the bill can be quietly abandoned.

In non-election years, bills may be circulated and may be “pre

filed” as early as November 15th ( in the Senate Rule 14D). In

election years bills may be prefiled as soon as the Secretary of

State has certified the election of members. Or, legislators may

wait and may circulate the bill for signatures up to the deadline

for filing new bills. By Senate Rule (14C), this deadline is set

for the 22nd day of each regular session or the tenth day of a

special session.

What are “Vehicle Bills?”

There is one last source of new bills; a small but nonetheless

important source.

The state constitution requires all bills to cover one subject only.

(Article 4, Part 2, Section 13) Any amendments to a bill must

relate to that subject — they must be “germane”.

“Vehicle bills” are bills which are drafted to make extremely

minor, and almost always unnecessary, changes to existing law.

They are not intended to pass as is. Instead, a number of vehicle

bills, on a number of different subjects, are introduced at the

beginning of each session and are moved through the process.

Vehicle bills have at least three purposes:

1) In the course of every legislative session there are bills which

have strong backing which nonetheless do not clear one of the

many hurdles in the legislative process. In some cases, there is

reason to believe that the bill could be passed if given a new life

and another chance.

From Idea to Bill to Law

If an important “non-vehicle” bill dies and if the subject matter

of the important bill cannot be amended to any other bill which

is still alive, it may be possible to identify a vehicle bill, and,

using the amendment process, the subject of the vehicle bill is

deleted and the subject of the bill that earlier died is amended

onto the little that is left of the vehicle bill.

2) There are times when issues arise after the deadline for the

filing of new bills. Using vehicle bills allows these new matters

to be considered during the current legislative session; the issue

need not be put aside for almost a year until the next session.

3) Vehicle bills can be used as “placeholders” for issues which

have not been fully developed at the time of the deadline for the

introduction of new bills.

Because the use of a vehicle bill, while technically legal, skirts

what some consider “fair and right”, (in that vehicle bills don’t

always get the public notice and attention that other bills do),

vehicle bills are sparingly used.

Generally, unused vehicle bills never come

to a vote on the floor and die with the end

of the session, although old -timers tell sto-

ries of times when on very rare occasions a

mistake was made and a vehicle bill was

actually enacted into law!

The “Hopper”

When the sponsor has as many signatures as he can get, or as

many as he wants, he formally files the bill. This is done by

placing the “intro set” into a box in the office of the Secretary of

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

the Senate or the Clerk of the House. The box is known as “the

hopper”.

At this point the proposed legislation is formally designated as

“a bill”. The first bill introduced each in the Senate each session

is SB1001, the second is SB1002 and so on. The House of Rep-

resentatives starts with HB2001. The bill is logged and copies

are made available for the first time to other legislators and to

the general public. (Although, as we’ve already seen, few pro-

posals get to this point entirely unknown because sponsors cir-

culate bills for additional signatures or to test public opinion.)

If the legislative session is underway, the bill is put on the calen-

dar for “first reading.”

The number of bills introduced during a legislative session may

total 1,000 or more. Some bills may be only one page long; oth-

ers may have hundreds of pages. It is not practical for each legis-

lator to read all of the bills introduced; there simply isn’t enough

time. Instead, many legislators will file the bills they receive and

will read individual bills only when the bill reaches a stage in the

process where the legislator needs to become involved with the

bill. For some bills this is when the bill is assigned to a commit-

tee of which the legislator is a member; for other bills it is when

the bill is discussed in caucus.

First Reading of the Bill

The Arizona Constitution (Article IV, Part 2, Section 12) requires

each bill to be “read by sections on three different days,unless in

case of emergency.” The rationale for reading each bill in its

entirety three times goes back to territorial and early statehood

days when communications between the legislators was much

more difficult. Although it might be expected that anyone serv-

ing in the Arizona legislature would be literate, such was not

From Idea to Bill to Law

always the case. Thus, to avoid embarrassment to those who could

not read well, the bills were read to them. Even more impor-

tantly, the legislature did not always have the use of computers

and high speed copiers to quickly print multiple copies of bills

and amendments. Many of us can remember the old mimeograph

machines, and before them anything duplicated had to be type-

set and printed or it had to be recopied by hand. Reading pro-

posed legislation out loud saved the time and trouble of waiting

for multiple copies to be made.

Reading each bill three times also served as a sort of notice to

the public.

Despite the lofty goals of requiring each piece of legislation to

be read three times, in practice it became obvious that reading

each piece of legislation three times would be enormously time

consuming. Ingenious methods were devised to follow the Con-

stitution, but nonetheless save time. For example, if a thirty page

bill was introduced, thirty different people would each read one

page. And all thirty would read at the same time!

Eventually, the legislature sought to get around the three read-

ings. The solution was again creative. They simply declared an

emergency. (Remember the “unless in case of emergency” in Ar-

ticle IV?) Under this provision, instead of reading the entire bill

three times, the legislature only reads the title of the bill three

times.

So, to this day, one of the very first items

on the agenda at the opening of each legis-

lature is to have an emergency declared. Put

differently, every piece of legislation passed

for a number of years has been passed un-

der an “emergency”!

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

(This procedural “emergency” is, of course, different from “emer-

gency clause” legislation. Legislation with the emergency clause

is discussed further on in this booklet.)

Today, all legislators have a printed calendar of exactly what is

going to be considered and when that consideration will take

place. Today’s legislators are also able to read. There is no longer

any real need for three separate readings.

The presiding officer of each house is responsible for determin-

ing when bills are to be placed on the calendar. Until just re-

cently, the President of the Senate had the sole discretion of which

bills to introduce to the legislative process in the Senate. If the

bill was not read a second time, it was essentially dead for the

session. The only alternatives open to the backers of the bill

were to have the subject matter amended to a similar bill which

still survived, have a “vehicle bill” used, or offer a “strike every-

thing” amendment.

Current rules require all bills in the Senate to be introduced and

assigned to a committee.

First Reading of Bills is one of the early items on each day’s

agenda, so, shortly after the prayer and the pledge of allegiance,

the presiding officer will say “First reading of bills.”

When first reading is announced, a staff member known as “the

Reader” rapidly reads the bill number and the title of each bill up

for first reading. He does this very quickly, introducing perhaps

a half dozen to a dozen bills in a minute.

From Idea to Bill to Law

The performance of the reader is almost al-

ways met with astonishment and then smiles

from those seated in the gallery. Hardly any

of the visitors, and hardly any of the Sena-

tors, can make out what is being said, but

everyone is amazed that the reader could

read so fast. On days in which a large num-

ber of new bills are introduced, it is not un-

usual for the gallery to break into sponta-

neous applause when the reader finishes.

Sometimes the Senators even add their ap-

preciation!

In the Senate, first reading is essentially ceremonial. In the House

of Representatives, committee assignments are made on first read-

ing.

During the 1999 session of the Legislature, 419 bills were intro-

duced in the Senate. We’ll keep track of the attrition as we move

through the process.

Second Reading of Bills

On the day after bills are first read, they are eligible for second

reading. In the House of Representatives bills are assigned to

committees on first reading; in the Senate committee assignment

is done on second reading.

For most bills there is an obvious standing committee to which

the bill should be assigned. In other cases, the assignment might

not be quite as obvious. In determining committee assignment

the President and the Speaker of the House might talk with other

members of the majority leadership, to the sponsor of the bill,

and even with individual legislators before assigning a bill to a

committee. He could meet with the chairman of the committee

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

to which the bill would most properly be assigned to determine

the reaction of the committee chairman to hearing the bill.

By Senate rule (2 J) all bills are automatically referred to the

Rules committee, so in the Senate the President announces only

the names of the other standing committees appropriate to each

bill.

Sometimes bills are assigned to two or more

standing committees. This could take place

when the subject matter touches on the

“turf” of multiple committees, but it could

also take place as part of an effort to make

the road to law for the bill as difficult as

possible. When a bill is assigned to mul-

tiple standing committees, it must pass each

committee in order to continue in the legis-

lative process. If the bill passes the first

committee and then is held, buried in sub-

committee, or voted down in the second

committee, it is as dead as if it was never

heard in the first committee. Sometimes

this ploy can be an excellent way of satis-

fying both the proponents and the opponents

of a measure!

The Role of the Committee Chairman

Bills assigned to a committee on second reading immediately

face another hurdle. The committee chairman of the committee

to which the bill has been assigned must decide on a specific

course of action for each bill. The options of the committee chair-

man are:

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

a) Hear the bill and vote on it

b) Hear the bill but take no action

c) Assign the bill to subcommittee

d) Not hear the bill

The current practice is that no bill can be passed without public

hearings, but there is no requirement that all bills assigned to a

committee must receive a public hearing. Generally, public hear-

ings are held for those bills which the committee chairman feels

should move further forward in the legislative process.

Committees usually meet once a week, on the same day, and

generally at the same time. In the Senate, rule (7 B 11) requires

that Senate bills must be heard by their standing committees prior

to the Saturday of the sixtieth day of the session.

There is, then, a maximum of eight regular committee meetings

for each Senate committee to discuss bills introduced in the Sen-

ate. Sometimes this number is reduced to six or seven due to

scheduling conflicts; sometimes the number is increased by hold-

ing one or two special meetings.

All in all, few committees could possibly have hearings on every

bill. It is the job of the committee chairman to decide which bills

to hear and when to hear them. In making this determination, the

committee chairman will consider whether or not a bill has a

reasonable chance of passing his committee.

During the 1999 session, of 419 Senate bills assigned to com-

mittees, 140 or 33%, were held in committee (a few of these bills

were given hearings). The remaining 279 bills were given com-

mittee hearings and voted either up or down.own. The commit-

tee chairmen were pretty good judges of what would pass, be-

cause only 29 of the bills failed at the committee level.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Getting a hearing on a bill is a crucial first step for individual

citizens, lobbyists, special interest groups and state agencies. As

will be seen below, in the Senate, bills that receive a hearing

have a high likelihood of passing committee, and almost as high

a likelihood of passing the full Senate. So, while failure to se-

cure a hearing is a virtual disaster for a bill, getting a hearing

takes a bill on the longest step towards becoming law.

If a committee chairman for whatever reason decides not to hear

a bill, that bill is not dead, but it is severely wounded. It is within

the President’s or the Speaker’s power to remove a bill from a

committee and assign it to another committee but this procedure

is rarely used over the objections of a committee chairman. And,

in the Senate, Rule (7 B 6) provides that upon receipt of a peti-

tion signed by 2/3 of the committee, the chairman will immedi-

ately schedule a bill for a hearing. To reach 2/3 however, and

force the committee chairman to hear a bill, some members of

the majority party would have to go against their committee chair-

man. This almost never happens.

For bills that the committee chairman elects not to hear there is

always the option of having the subject matter of the bill amended

to another bill that still survives. This is the route most often

taken.

In the Senate if a committee chairman decides to hear a bill, at

least five days before the committee meeting the chairman must

distribute a public agenda announcing the specific bills to be

considered. No other bills, resolutions or memorials, unless by

unanimous consent, may be discussed at the meeting (Senate Rule

7 B 5.)

From Idea to Bill to Law

Before the Committee Meeting

During the five days before the committee meeting, increased

attention begins to be focused on the bill. It is during this period

that the committee members become more familiar with the bill

and what the bill would do. Often legislators will not even read

bills until they are scheduled for a committee of which they are a

member. There is, after all, little reason to read every bill when it

is introduced if over a third of them are never even scheduled for

a committee hearing.

While legislators are getting up to speed on the bill, staff re-

search and preparation intensifies. Fact sheets are prepared and

other pertinent background information is collected.

It is also during this time that contacts from lobbyists and inter-

est groups intensify. Once proponents of legislation have con-

vinced the committee chairman to hear a bill, efforts shift to con-

vincing a majority of the committee to vote to pass the bill out of

committee.

The first amendments begin to appear.

Amendments

One of the most visible results of this heightened attention to the

bill in the period before the public committee hearing is often

found in the filing of amendments. Once a bill has been sched-

uled for committee, it is subject to the amendment process.

Amendments can be offered by any member of the committee.

Amendments may correct technical errors noticed since draft-

ing, amendments may strengthen the bill or weaken the bill, and

in one situation, amendments may even entirely change the bill.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Committees have different rules as to how amendments need to

be offered, but the general rule in the Senate is that amendments

must be made available to others no later than 5 P.M. on the

business day before the committee meeting.

The “Strike Everything” Amendment

The “strike everything” amendment is unique, and barely quali-

fies to be called an amendment. It is, more properly, a complete

replacement. In a “strike everything” amendment, everything after

the words “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Ari-

zona” is struck out, or removed, and is replaced by entirely dif-

ferent language. When an amendment of this type passes, the

original bill and all amendments associated with it are gone.

A “strike everything” is one of the most common ways to resur-

rect a bill that has previously “died”. Towards the end of session

is sometimes seems as if every other bill is a “strike everything”.

“Strikers” also a way to deal with an issue which arises after the

deadline for the filing of new bills.

In the Senate all “strike everything amendments” to existing bills

must be scheduled by filing a notice in the Secretary of the

Senate’s Office by 5:00 pm two days in advance and must be

heard by a standing committee at a public hearing.

Needless to say, because this type of amendment destroys the

original bill, a “strike everything” is rarely used without permis-

sion of the original bill’s sponsor. In a more perfect world, “strike

everything” amendments would be used only on “vehicle bills”.

From Idea to Bill to Law

In the “olden days”, it was permissible for

legislators to propose “strike everything”

amendments during floor debate on a bill

which had already cleared committee. This

meant that for all practical purposes the new

bill contained in the strike everything

amendment could be debated and voted into

law without a public hearing and without

giving interested citizens and lobbying

groups an opportunity to be heard.

(Remember that each house of the legisla-

ture makes its own rules. Requiring notice

and public hearings and restricting the use

of devices such as “strike everything”

amendments is a sign of the reform process

which has been underway in the Senate for

several years. The Senate has never been

more “open” than it is today.)

The Committee Meeting

Committee meetings are almost always held in one of the desig-

nated hearing rooms on the first floor of the Senate and the House

buildings. Prior to the meeting, bills to be heard, copies of amend-

ments and a “Fact Sheet” for each bill are prepared by commit-

tee staff and are made available on a table outside the committee

room. The table will also include “Sign-In Slips” for individuals

to fill out if they wish to testify on a bill. These slips are for-

warded to the committee chairman prior to the meeting.

Once the meeting is underway, one of the first orders of business

is generally for the committee chairman to announce which

bills, if any, are to be “held.” Remember that the agenda for the

meeting indicates which bills are eligible to be heard, but there is

no requirement that each bill on the agenda actually receives a

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

hearing. Sometimes there are last minute technical problems with

a bill, sometimes support dries up unexpectedly, and sometimes

it becomes obvious that the time allocated for the meeting will

not be enough to hear all of the bills on the agenda. By announc-

ing “held” bills, the committee chairman does a courtesy to au-

dience members who may have come to the hearing only for the

bill or bills being “held.”

Many committee chairmen will also announce the order in which

the bills are to be heard. Because it is not always possible to

hear every bill, if a chairman who wants to be sure a bill will be

heard can put it at the top of the agenda. Announcing the order

in which bills will be heard is also a courtesy to the audience. It

gives audience members a rough idea of the time period in which

particular bills will be heard.

The first step in “hearing” a bill will almost always be a short

objective presentation by one or more members of the commit-

tee staff. Staff will explain what the proposed bill does, may give

appropriate legislative history and may answer questions from

legislators sitting on the committee.

If the sponsor of the bill is on the committee or in the audience,

the sponsor will generally initiate testimony on the bill.

Testimony from witnesses generally follows. In some instances

testimony is prescheduled and the order of at least some wit-

nesses may be arranged in advance; but for most other bills the

chairman will simply sort through the sign-in slips and call on

individuals to testify. Witnesses may also be asked questions by

the committee members.

There is no requirement that all who want to testify be allowed

to do so. In fact, there is no requirement that anyone be allowed

to testify. These matters are solely within the discretion of the

committee chairman.

From Idea to Bill to Law

As a general rule, however, lobbyists for recognized interest

groups are almost always allowed to testify because they repre-

sent large constituencies. There has been a trend in recent years

to make a sincere effort to encourage private citizens to make

their views known. In fact, the two limiting factors to hearing

anyone who wants to give testimony are usually the lack of time

and the eventual petering out of nonrepetitive testimony. On

most bills, all who wish to speak generally have the opportunity

to testify for at least a few minutes.

At some point it will become appropriate for the committee chair-

man to consider putting the bill in question to a vote. A chair-

man can “hold” a bill at anytime; during testimony, or debate. If

there appears to be general agreement for the bill, the chairman

will look for a motion to adopt the bill.

There are no hard and fast rules about who

makes motions, but by tradition the bill is

moved by the sponsor of the bill if the spon-

sor sits on the committee. Otherwise the

vice-chairman of the committee usually

“moves” the bill.

The format is generally as follows:

“Mr. Chairman, I move Senate Bill 1234 be returned with a ‘Do

Pass’ recoommendation”.

In the Senate a motion does not require a second.

If there are no amendments to the bill, the chairman will enter-

tain discussion on the bill. Any committee member may speak

for as long as he likes and can speak as often as he likes, so long

as he is recognized by the chairman.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

At the conclusion of discussion, the chairman will call for a roll

call vote on the bill and will announce whether or not the bill is

adopted by the committee and recommended to the entire body.

In a roll call vote, the secretary reads each committee member’s

name in alphabetical order, with the exception of the chairman

who is called last. Each committee member has three initial op-

tions, “Aye,” “Nay” or “Pass”. A “Pass” is only a temporary re-

lief from voting; in the Senate, every Senator who is present must

vote. (In the House, it is permissible to vote “Present” which

counts as neither an aye nor a nay vote.) A “Pass” can be used if

a Senator has not yet made up his mind, or if he wants to see how

other Senators vote before he does. After completing the roll once,

the Secretary will return to those who passed before calling on

the chairman for his vote.

There is a procedure in the Senate for ex-

cusing oneself from voting. Under Senate

Rules 15 and 30, Senators with conflicts of

interest can be excused from voting on spe-

cific bills.

If there are amendments to the bill, the chairman will indicate

the order in which the amendments are to be considered and the

sponsor of the first amendment will begin the amendment pro-

cess. The form for introducing an amendment is:

“Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of the two page amendment

bearing my name and carrying the date of 2/1/95.”

Following introduction of the amendment, there is discussion on

the amendment similar to the discussion on a bill.

At the conclusion of discussion, the chairman will call for a voice

vote on the amendment and will announce whether or not, in his

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

opinion, the amendment is adopted. A roll call vote is only taken

if requested by one of the committee members.

Sometimes roll call votes are called for on

amendments because a committe member

believes the chairman has heard wrong —

that there were actually enough voice votes

to swing the issue the other way. But, there

is also a political purpose; by asking for a

roll call vote a member can force the other

members to make their position on the

amendment a matter of the public record.

After all amendments have been considered, if one or more

amendments has been adopted, the form for adopting the bill is:

“Mr. Chairman, I move that Senate Bill 1234, as amended, re-

ceive a ‘Do Pass’ recommendation”.

The chairman authorizes a roll call vote and announces the re-

sult. Senate Rule (7 B 5) requires only a majority of members

present to advance a bill.

(It is important to note that, while committee approval is a re-

quirement for each bill, passing through committee does not guar-

antee that the bill will become law. Often committee hearings

will reveal need for additional work on a bill. If there is not

enough time to “hold” the bill and rework it, some committees

will pass the bill out of committee with the understanding that

additional work will be done on the bill before the bill reaches a

vote of the full Senate. See discussion of “floor amendments”

below. And, sometimes Senators will vote at the committee level

for bills they do not support in order to allow the full Senate to

make a determination on the merits of the bill.)

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

As we have already seen, most bills come to a committee’s at-

tention after they go in the “hopper”, are “first” and “second”

read and are scheduled for a hearing by the committee chairman.

The exceptions are proposals in the Senate for “committee bills”.

Senate Rules (7 B 5 and 7 B 8) allow for bills (and resolutions

and memorials) to be introduced by a committee. (The House

does not have a similar rule.) Most Senate bills are sponsored by

one or more Senators, so this procedure is not used very often.

The procedure, though, is as follows:

Someone has to have an “intro set” that has not

yet gone into the “hopper”.

The committee chairman has to schedule

consideration of the item (unless there is

unanimous consent to skip this part).

If the committee is unanimous in wanting to introduce the draft

as a bill, it is called a “committee bill”. If the vote is less than

unanimous, but more than half, to introduce the bill, it becomes

known as a “majority of committee” measure.

From committee the bill goes into the “hopper” and then to the

President for the usual scheduling for “first” reading.

Following the committee meeting, minutes of the meeting are

prepared and distributed. The minutes and records of the roll

call votes are open for public inspection in the lobby of the Sen-

ate or in the office of the Secretary of the Senate. All committee

meetings are also recorded on audiotapes and the tapes are made

available to the general public at a nominal cost.

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Subcommittee - Boon, or Kiss of Death?

As discussed above, one of the options of the committee chair-

man is to assign a bill to a subcommittee. There are generally

two reasons for assigning a bill to a subcommittee:

1) The bill has had a hearing in the full committee

and testimony reveals that additional work or

additional testimony on the bill is required. Rather

than take up the time of all of the committee

members, the committee chairman may appoint a

subcommittee to continue work on the bill and

report back to the full committee. A chairman

can assign a bill to subcommittee virtually at his

discretion.

2) If the committee chairman wants to avoid

criticism for not hearing a bill, but nonetheless

doesn’t want the bill to pass, he can assign it to

subcommittee and then give a strong suggestion

to the subcommittee chairman that he not hear the

bill. This is the same as killing the bill.

Subcommittees represent a small departure from the usual pro-

cedure with meetings in the Senate. Subcommittees do not have

to have minutes taken, there does not need to be written notice of

a subcommittee meeting and there need not be a written agenda.

On the other hand, in order to comply with open meeting laws, it

is necessary that all deliberations take place in public and it is

necessary that any planned subcommittee meeting be announced

during an open session of the Senate.

So, having a bill assigned to subcommittee can be either a good

or a bad sign. In recent years, though, going to subcommittee has

more often than not been a kiss of death.

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Role of the Rules Committee

Legislators on the Rules Committee, aided by advice from the

nonpartisan Rules Attorneys, function as a sort of legal review

panel for proposed legislation. Among other things, the Rules

Committee reviews each bill for constitutionality and proper form.

A bill goes to the Rules Committee after it has cleared its regu-

larly assigned committee(s).

The Arizona Constitution, for example, requires that “Every act

shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected

therewith.” (Article IV, Part 2, Section 13)

This may appear to be a simple requirement on its face, but it is

one often difficult to determine. Is a bill dealing with a school

tax, for example, a bill about taxes, or a bill about schools? The

difference can be very important. It is in the Rules Committee

that potential difficulties with constitutionality and form are

worked out. In rare instances a bill is rejected entirely. Most

often amendments are proposed to correct deficiencies noted by

the Rules Attorney.

While it does little good for the legislature to spend time, money

and effort on legislation which is most likely going to be de-

clared unconstitutional if challenged, there is no requirement that

the Rules Committee go along with the recommendations of the

Rules Attorney.

There is a saying, uttered only partly in jest, that if a bill can get

“16 and 31” it is Constitutional. The saying refers to the number

of votes necessary to pass a measure through the Senate and the

House of Representatives. In a sense, the saying has validity. If a

bill can pass through the legislature and is signed by the gover-

nor, it is presumed to be Constitutional unless and until it is suc-

cessfully challenged in court. It is not unheard of for proposed

From Idea to Bill to Law

legislation to pass even though almost all parties know it will be

ruled unconstitutional — sometimes there are political reasons

for doing so. For the most part, though, a ruling by the Rules

Attorney that proposed legislation is unconstitutional is enough

to severely dim any chances of the proposed bill becoming law.

The role of the Rules Committee in the Sen-

ate is different in one major aspect from the

role of the same committee in the House of

Representatives. In the Senate, bills are usu-

ally not “held” in the Rules Committee for

partisan or political purposes; bills which

go into the Rules Committee are almost al-

ways reported out. In the House, the Chair-

man of the Rules Committee can “hold”

(read “kill”) a bill simply by not giving it a

hearing.

The Consent Calendar

In the Senate bills which are reported out of committee with no

amendments are automatically put on the consent calendar. Bills

on the consent calendar skip Committee of the Whole and go

directly to Third Reading. Any member of the Senate can object

to a bill being on the consent calendar. The objection removes

the bill from the consent calendar and routes it to the Committe

of the Whole.

The Caucus

The caucus is not a Constitutional or statutory part of the bill

consideration process. In a sense, though, it is one of the most

important parts of the process.

Each political party in each house has a caucus consisting of

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

legislators of their party. There is, therefore, a majority caucus

and a minority caucus in each body. In the Senate, the majority

caucus room is on the second floor of the Senate; the minority

caucus room is on the first floor. Caucus meetings are currently

open to the public, by Senate rule. Caucuses are not , however,

subject to the Arizona Open Meeting law and there is no guaran-

tee that caucus meetings will always be open to the public.

Periodically during the session, caucus meetings will be used to

make legislators aware of the bills which have cleared their stand-

ing committees and the Rules committee. While each legislator

is knowledgeable about bills which have cleared the committees

of which he is a member, the legislator may know little or noth-

ing about bills which have cleared other committees. Indeed,

caucus may be the first time they have heard of a particular bill.

During the caucus review, staff members will summarize each

bill that has cleared committee and caucus members will have

the opportunity to ask questions about the bill. Bills are not de-

bated in caucus, and formal votes are not taken, but during dis-

cussion individual legislators may voice support or opposition

to the bill and that discussion will often give an indication of

future success or failure. Caucus discussion also occasionally

reveals a need for additional amendments or corrections to the

proposed bill.

Both parties usually cooperate to move bills quickly through cau-

cus so the bills can be considered in Committee of the Whole.

“Committee of the Whole” is almost always

referred to as “COW”!

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Calendar of the Committee of the Whole

In the Senate once a bill has cleared its committees, it goes on

the calendar of the Committee of the Whole (Senate Rule 8 A 1).

The COW calendar functions as a holding area for bills. No bill

may be considered on the floor of the Senate until after it has

been on the COW calendar for five days. The calendar of the

Rules Committee is drawn from this list and during this period

bills may be discussed by the Rules Committee and they may be

discussed in caucus.

Committee of the Whole

As seen above, in the Senate the holding area for bills is the

calendar of the Committee of the Whole. From the bills on this

calendar the President selects bills to become part of the active

calendar of the Committee of the Whole. (Senate Rule 8 A 2).

Even though a bill has passed through committee and has been

discussed in caucus and the Rules Committee, there is no re-

quirement that the President permit the bill to proceed any fur-

ther in the legislative process.

During the 1999 session, only five bills did not “clear” the COW

calendar, that is to say, the President of the Senate did not ad-

vance them to Committee of the Whole.

Committee of the Whole is one of the orders of business during

a legislative session. It is, in effect, a committee meeting of all

Senators, (or House members) but without additional testimony

from outside sources. It is in Committee of the Whole that de-

bate takes place.

When a Committee of the Whole is convened, the presiding of-

ficer does not generally appoints a chairman for the meeting.

The chairman is generally a legislator well versed in parliamen-

tary procedure and the regulation of debate. Not all legislators

From Idea to Bill to Law

are interested in serving as COW chairman. The chairmanship

will rotate during the 100 days of the session with some legisla-

tors serving as chairman several times and others not serving at

all. Conduct of the Committee of the Whole in the Senate is set

forth in Senate Rule 16.

As the body nears the place on the calendar for Committee of the

Whole, there may well be a flurry of activity as pages move

quickly from desk to desk on the floor. They are delivering amend-

ments.

We have already seen that, in the Senate, for amendments to be

considered by one of the standing committees of the Senate, those

amendments must be published by 5:00 P.M. on the day before

the committee meeting. There is no such rule for amendments

offered in Committee of the Whole. While many amendments

may be ready in advance of the COW meeting, others may not

be ready until after the meeting has started. There may even be

amendments drafted and delivered as debate is going on. Indeed,

one of the most difficult tasks for legislators during COW debate

is to not only determine the merits of the bill itself, but also to

consider the bill in the context of numerous amendments which

may be offered.

A COW session begins with the designated chairman assuming

the presiding officers chair. Following the calendar established

by the presiding officer, the chairman will call on the Secretary

(or the Clerk in the House) to read the title of the first bill. This

function is generally performed by the reader. The chairman

then calls on the sponsor of the bill (or the chairman of the ap-

propriate committee if it is a House bill) who makes a motion in

the following form:

“Mr. Chairman, I move that when the Committee of the Whole

rises to report, it recommends that Senate Bill 1234 do pass.”

From Idea to Bill to Law

Simple Bills

In the event that the bill has no amendments, the Chairman will

call on the sponsor of the bill and invite him to introduce debate

on the bill.

As the sponsor speaks, other legislators may indicate to the Chair-

man that they also wish to be heard. The Chairman will call on

all who wish to speak. Any Senator may speak as long as he

wants and as often as he wants. (House rules are somewhat more

limiting.)

There are few rules about what can be said and what cannot be

said during debate. Senate Rule 9C says that no Senator, during

debate shall impute to another Senator any conduct or motive

unworthy of a Senator. And, the Arizona Constitution says in

Article IV, Part 2, Section 7 that no member of the legislature

shall be liable in any civil or criminal prosecution for words spo-

ken in debate.

The combination of these two rules could

be interpreted to mean that a Senator can

say anything he wants as long as he doesn’t

say anything bad about another Senator!

When debate has wound down, the Chairman will say approxi-

mately the following:

“Is there any further debate? If not, the question before you is

that when the Committee of the Whole rises to report, it recom-

mends that Senate Bill 1234 do pass. All those in favor say ‘aye’.”

Votes on bills in COW are, with certain exceptions, voice votes.

The Chairman will listen for the “aye” votes. Then he will say:

“Those opposed, say ‘nay’.”

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

The Chairman will listen for the “nay” votes. Assuming the “aye”

votes appear to be greater than the “nay” votes, the Chairman

will say:

“The ‘ayes’ appear to have it. They do have it. (Sound gavel) So

ordered.”

Division

On any voice vote, and prior to the chairman sounding the gavel,

any legislator may call for a “division.” A division is a standing

count vote of the “ayes” and “nays.” This procedure is used when

the voice votes do not indicate a clear preference for or against

the bill, or when there is doubt that the Chair made the correct

call.

Bills With Amendments

If there are amendments to the bill, the procedure is slightly dif-

ferent. After the sponsor moves the bill, one of the amendments

is read. The Chairman then calls on the sponsor of the amend-

ment to explain his amendment and begin debate, not on the bill,

but on the amendment. The debate and voice vote procedure is

the same as for a bill. Any other amendments are disposed of in

this same fashion. If one or more amendments are adopted, the

sponsor of the bill will move that the bill “as amended” do pass.

The final action is a voice vote on the bill “as amended.”

Defeated Bills

In the Senate if a bill is defeated, Senate Rule (17 H) requires

that a roll call vote be taken. This is the only provision for a roll

call vote during Committee of the Whole.

If a bill is defeated, it returns to the calendar of the Committee of

the Whole — the holding pool of bills. The President can bring

the bill back to the active Committee of the Whole calendar, to

be debated once more in COW, again and, if necessary, again.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Other Motions

1) The Majority Leader may ask that a particular

bill “retain its place on the calendar.” The effect

of this motion is to cause the Chairman to

temporarily skip the bill; to move the bill to the

end of the line of bills to be considered. This

motion is used, for example, when last minute

amendments are being drafted, or when one side

or the other is unsure of the votes for a particular

bill.

2) The Majority Leader may move that a bill “be

retained on the calendar.” The effect of this motion

is to skip the bill entirely; to move it back to the

calendar of the Committee of the Whole for

selection on some other day.

In both cases, the Chairman will ask for (and almost always re-

ceive) unanimous consent to declare the motions passed.

When all bills on the active calendar of the Committee of the

Whole have been heard or retained, the Chairman will call on

the Majority Leader who will move that “The Committee of the

Whole rise and report”. The Chairman will order one final call-

ing of the “ayes” and “nays”. This motion almost always passes

and when it does the Committee of the Whole is ended.

The Secretary (or Clerk in the House) will present the COW

Chairman with a Committee of the Whole report which he signs.

At this point the President or the Speaker will retake the chair.

Once the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is back at his

desk, the Secretary or Clerk will read the report of the Commit-

From Idea to Bill to Law

tee of the Whole and the President or Speaker will call on the

COW Chairman who will make the following motion:

“Mr. Chairman, I move the report of the Committee of the Whole

be adopted, and the bills be properly assigned.” If there is no

objection, the presiding officer will “so order”, but oftentimes

this is not the case.

We have noted that, except in instances in which a bill fails, there

are no recorded roll call votes in Committee of the Whole. How-

ever, once back in regular session, and before the report of the

Committee of the Whole is adopted, it may suit a legislator’s

purpose to force his fellow legislators to declare themselves on

one or more bills. He can do this by offering amendments to the

Committee of the Whole report, perhaps offering again an amend-

ment that died during the Committee of the Whole debate, and

asking for a roll call vote on each amendment. If his motions are

carefully worded, he might not change the outcome on any bills,

but he can force legislators to go on the record for any or all of

the measures considered during Committee of the Whole.

Of 273 bills which appeared on the active Committee of the Whole

Calendar in the 1999 session, 9 were held, 251 passed COW, 8

failed, and 5 were retained on the calendar.

Senate Calendar

In the Senate, bills which have passed COW go on the Senate

calendar. This is another holding area. From this calendar the

President picks the bills he wishes to present to the full Senate

for “third reading” (Senate Rule 8 A 4).

From Idea to Bill to Law

Engrossing

Once a bill has cleared Committee of the Whole it is “engrossed”.

During engrossing all amendments are merged with the original

bill and a “clean” bill is created. This is so that, on third reading,

legislators can read the bill as it has been approved so far with-

out having to hold the original bill in one hand and a sheaf of

amendment pages in the other.

Third Reading

At any time after a bill has cleared COW, it is eligible for third

reading. When, and if, the bill appears on the calendar for third

reading is at the discretion of the President or the Speaker.

When a bill is “third read,” the reader reads the title of the bill

and all legislators immediately cast an electronic vote for or

against the bill.

Debate is not allowed during voting, but it is permissible to ask

permission to “explain one’s vote.” At times, vote explanations

can become quite lengthy and can sound suspiciously like de-

bate.

Most Senate bills need 16 votes to pass, regardless of how many

Senators are in the chamber at the time of the vote (Arizona Con-

stitution, Article IV, Part 2, Section 15). In the House, the magic

number is 31.

If a bill fails to receive enough votes, it is one legislative day

from being dead. The only way it can be revived is by a “Motion

to Reconsider.”

The exception to the 16 or 31 vote rule is for bills with “Prop

108” or “emergency clauses.” Proposition 108 bills include any

From Idea to Bill to Law

bills which have language which raises taxes or increases fees.

These bills require a 2/3 vote to pass. In the Senate of 30 mem-

bers, this means 20 votes.

Motion to Reconsider

This is often a final attempt to save a bill which failed in third

reading but it can also be used to kill a bill which may have

passed in third reading. This tactic is only used when the third

read vote was very close and when there is reason to believe that

enough votes have been changed (or absent legislators rounded

up) to make a difference if the matter is brought up again.

A motion to reconsider must be made on the same or at the latest,

the next session day. Additionally, the motion must be made by

someone who was on the winning side of the earlier vote.

The form of the motion is as follows: “Mr. President, I move that

the Senate reconsider its action whereby it passed (or failed to

pass) Senate Bill 1234 on March 15, 1995.”

After debate on the motion, a vote is almost always immediately

taken, although in the Senate when to vote on a motion to recon-

sider is technically at the discretion of the President.

If the motion to reconsider fails, the matter is settled and cannot

be further discussed. If the motion to reconsider passes, then the

bill returns to the calendar. The time for actual reconsideration

is at the discretion of the President. In the House, a member can

move to reconsider at a specific time.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Bills that Pass on Third Reading

These bills have made it through a long road, but their journey is

not even half over. Senate bills that pass on third reading are

transmitted to the House of Representatives where they must

begin much the same process all over again. House bills are

transmitted to the Senate where they start over.

Some of the bills will die in the other house. Some will be

amended and returned to the originating house. Some may even

pass the other house unamended and will be sent back to their

house of origin and on to the Governor for signing.

In the 1999 session, 251 Senate bills were eligible for third read-

ing. 239 passed, 5 failed, and 7 were held.

Senate Bill Summary

Following is a summary of the 419 bills introduced in the Senate

during 1999:

Number Remaining

Introduced 419

Held in First Read 0 419

Held in Second Read 0 419

Held in Committee 140 279

Held in Rules 6 273

Held on COW calendar 9 264

Retained on COW calendar 5 259

Failed in COW 8 251

Held on Third Read 7 244

Failed on Third Read 5 239

Sent to House 239

Source: “Summary of Senate Bills, Memorials and

Resolutions”

From Idea to Bill to Law

Crossover Week

All Senate bills must clear their committees before Saturday of

the week in which the sixtieth day of the session falls (Senate

Rule 7 B 9). This is so the Senate has time to Rules, caucus,

COW and third read bills which must go over to the House of

Representatives.

While the Senate is doing its business, the House is proceeding

along essentially similar lines.

During “crossover week,” a week which occurs about 70 days

into the session (about mid-March), most other effort comes to a

halt as both branches of the legislature ready the last of the bills

which have to “cross over” to the other body.

In a sense, this is a week when some legislators can take a breather.

They pretty much need it, because another major effort is about

to begin.

Consideration of House Bills

All of the bills which successfully passed through the House of

Representatives come to the Senate as if they were brand new

bills. They go through exactly the same procedure that we dis-

cussed for Senate bills. That is, they must be first and second

read, they must be assigned to a committee, the committee chair-

man must elect to hear the bill, the bill must pass through com-

mittee, must go through Rules Committee and must be discussed

in caucus. The bills must be debated in Committee of the Whole,

must pass through there, and must secure a favorable vote on

third reading.

At any point in the process bills may drop out, and at any point

in the process (up to the final vote) bills may be amended. Amend-

From Idea to Bill to Law

ments may become numerous at this point in the session because

sponsors of bills which have failed or have not been heard ear-

lier will be looking for bills on the same general subject in an

attempt to secure a foothold for their failed bill via the amend-

ment process.

Because the House of Representatives has done a “first cut” on

the bills, the “held” percentage in committee is usually fairly

low. However, this does not necessarily mean that the “pass”

percentage is going to be particularly high.

In the 1997 session, the Senate received 385 bills from the House.

Disposition of those bills was as follows:

Received from House 385

Held 158 227

Failed on Third Read 10 217

Passed by Senate 217

Source: “Summary of House Bills, Memorials and Resolutions

Received by Senate”

The Conference Committee

Of the 271 bills passed by the Senate, many passed cleanly; that

is, without amendments by the Senate. These bills were returned

to the House, and then sent to the Governor.

The remaining bills, those that passed the Senate but, because of

amendments, were in a different form than they were in when

they initially passed the House, were returned to the House. The

House, meanwhile, was returning to the Senate bills which they

amended.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Each house now has a choice. They can accept the amendments

made by the other body (they can “concur”) or they can object to

one or more of the changes. If they “concur”, the bill is voted on,

and if passed, sent to the governor. If they do not concur, the bills

are sent to conference committees.

With the conference committees the legislature begins its most

frenetic phase, but a phase which signals the beginning of the

end of the legislative session.

A conference committee starts with the President of the Senate

and the Speaker of the House each appointing conference com-

mittee members. The original sponsor of the bill is almost al-

ways on the conference committee. There are majority and mi-

nority members on each committee. The conference committee

meets, in public, and attempts to come to agreement on a single

version of the bill. If they cannot come to agreement, the bill

dies. If agreement is reached, then the agreed version is returned

to both houses for a straight “aye” or “nay” vote. No further

amendments. If either house votes “nay,” the bill is dead (except

for rare instances in which the bill is referred back to conference

for another try). If both houses vote “aye,” the bill is passed and

is sent to the governor.

Except that, in reality, it oftentimes doesn’t quite

work the way it was designed to work. First, the

minority party members rarely have any say in

what happens in conference committee. Second,

much of the discussions as to whether or not there

is agreement on a compromise version of the bill

is done “behind the scenes”. In fact, the conference

committee is generally not even scheduled to meet

until the kinks are worked out. That’s why

conference committees with multi-page changes

and amendments can last no more than one or two

minutes.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

Sine Die

When all bills are passed, defeated, or held the business of the

legislature is over and the session is adjourned. The term “sine

die” is Latin for “without a day” or “indefinitely”. Both defini-

tions apply, for the legislature adjourns immediately and will stay

adjourned until the following January unless called into special

session.

(Despite the Latin origins of the phrase, most legislators trans-

late “sine die” into “Let’s get the heck out of here.”)

The Governor’s Desk

The governor has three options for each bill presented : 1) He

can sign the bill within five days (10 days if the legislature is

adjourned). If he does so, the law takes effect immediately if it

was emergency or Proposition 108 legislation; otherwise the law

takes effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns.

The Arizona Constitution provides a 90 day period

for opponents of a newly signed law to gather

enough signatures to put the question of the law

on the ballot at the next general election. If they

get enough signatures, the new law is put on hold

pending the vote of the people. This referendum

procedure gives the people ultimate veto power

over acts of the legislature.

2) He can refrain from signing the bill, in which case it becomes

law without his signature after the five or ten day period.

3) He can veto the bill. If the veto takes place while the legisla-

ture is still in session, the bill is returned to the legislature where

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

a 2/3 vote of each house (3/4 if emergency or Proposition 108

legislation) is required to override the veto. If the legislature has

already adjourned, the bill is dead.

... And, Let’s End at the End

Any discussion of the legislative process must end somewhere.

Dawn breaks slowly over the first day in months that the legisla-

ture is not in session. It’s quiet at the Capitol. Wandering through

the Senate building is like prowling the streets of a city in one of

those black and white 1950’s movies where the earth has been

invaded from outer space and mass evacuation has taken place.

The floor of the Senate is littered with celebratory confetti; the

desks are still covered with last minute agendas and with com-

promise amendments to final pieces of legislation. Throughout

the building wastebaskets are filled to overflowing with soft drink

cans, styrofoam coffee cups and bags and wrappers from local

fast food restaurants. Here and there office lights are still on —

their occupants toointerested in leaving to take time to turn them

off.

The legislators have gone home.

Only staff members, hard core members of the press corps, and

the pigeons remain.

It’s the morning after sine die.

And the cycle is already beginning again.

From Idea to Bill to Law

A Final Word

The road for a proposed new law is long and hard. Not all ideas

become bills and all bills certainly do not become law. The pro-

cess on occasion prevents a good idea from becoming law but

it’s generally accepted that the process more often prevents bad

laws from making it to the statute books.

The way laws are made this year is significantly different from

the way laws were made thirty years ago and the current method

is probably going to continue to change in the coming years.

More than ever before the people of the State of Arizona are in

charge. More than ever before, they are taking an active role in

the process. And that’s the way it should be.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Appendix A

The Appropriations Process

The biennial budget

For most of the last fifty years, the Arizona legislature has devel-

oped a complete budget each year. While the rest of the standing

committees heard bills and provided Senate confirmations of

board and agency nominees, the Appropriations Committee spent

much of the legislative session developing the budget.

Several years ago the Arizona legislature began moving towards

biennial, or two year, budgeting. The budget developed in the

spring of 1999 was the first totally biennial budget since the

1950’s.

The idea behind biennial budgeting was that it took nearly as

much time to pass a one year budget as a two year budget. So, if

a two year budget could be passed when a Legislature first con-

venes, the second year of that Legislature would be available for

research and study on the various components of the budget.

An interesting budgeting theory. Indeed a number of states use

biennial budgeting.

There are drawbacks though. First, every Appropriations Com-

mittee has members who do not know much about the budgeting

process at the time of their appointment. With an annual budget

cycle, these members might struggle through their first year, but

by the time of the second budget in the Legislature, they were

more knowledgeable. With a biennial budget, the new members

must pass on a two year budget -- even though they might know

little about the process!

From Idea to Bill to Law

In a normal one year budget cycle, state departments and agen-

cies begin work in June of the prior year on a budget they must

have to the Governor by September so it can be reviewed and

proposed to the Legislature in January so it can be enacted and

go into effect in July for the subsequent twelve month period.

Note, though, that work began a full year before the beginning

of the budget; two years before the period marking the end of the

budget.

In a biennial budget, it’s even worse. For example, agencies

began work in June of 1998 for the budget covering the period

July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001. This means forecasting and mak-

ing assumptions for a period thirty-six months out!

Obviously, not all of these forecasts and assumptions are going

to stand the test of time. So, even though we have a biennial

budget, the second year of each Legislature is going to continue

to have the Appropriations Committee meeting to fine tune the

work they did the year before.

It is interesting to note that in recent years,

more states have moved from biennial bud-

geting to annual budgeting than have, as

Arizona has, moved from an annual to a

biennial budget.

The preliminaries

As mentioned above, work on the budget begins a full year be-

fore the budget goes into effect. State agencies are required to

submit their budgets by September 1st of each year. To be com-

plete by September 1st, they have to start earlier. Most are al-

ready hard at work in June.

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

During the late summer and fall months, the budgets are reviewed

by the Governor’s office. The Governor’s Office of Strategic

Planning & Budget (“OSPB” ) takes a lead role. At the same

time, our “JLBC”, (Joint Legislative Budget Committee) a staff

branch of the legislature, is also hard at work coming up with its

own budget recommendations. OSPB and JLBC meet and con-

fer throughout the summer and fall. They may form a consensus

on some items; or they may not. Very preliminary discussions

with House and Senate leadership may take place.

As the weeks pass, the pace of the discussion increases.

Before any serious decisions on spending can be made, the par-

ties must have an idea of how much revenue will be available to

actually spend. Using detailed modeling, using input from econo-

mists throughout the state, and using super sophisticated “seat of

the pants” estimating, revenue projections are created and ana-

lyzed by both the executive and the legislature. Ultimately, sooner

some years than in others, a consensus revenue number is reached.

The consensus revenue number is very important, because it

sets the limits within which the legislature can spend.

It is important to note that all of this meet-

ing, discussing and analyzing is taking place

in an election year. The entire Legislature

is up for election at during this period, and

half the time the Governor’s seat is up for

grabs. So, our very talented staff people

have to do their work not knowing the philo-

sophical direction of the next Legislature!

Eventually the elections are held and the leadership and appro-

priations chairmen are named. These legislators hold discus-

sions with their respective memberships on the subject of legis-

☛

From Idea to Bill to Law

lative agendas for the coming session. Some of those legislative

agenda items almost always carry price tags. The Governor will

also have a legislative agenda with spending priorities attached.

Once again, the House, the Senate and the Governor will discuss

legislative agenda items that impact the budget. There will be

some common ground and some areas in which differences will

remain.

So, with a consensus revenue number, with an understanding of

where the agreements and differences are in base expenditure

plans and with an understanding of where the agreements and

differences are in new spending plans, it is time for the legisla-

tive process to begin.

The Appropriations Subcommittees

The mechanics of the budget are pretty simple. Both the House

and the Senate appropriations committees maintain three stand-

ing subcommittees. Each of the more than one hundred budget

units is assigned to one of the three subcommittees. With few

exceptions, all members of the full appropriations committees

are assigned to one of the three subcommittees.

Once the legislative session gets underway, the three subcom-

mittees meet separately and each subcommittee begins hearing

budget testimony on the agencies assigned to it. In most cases,

the Appropriations chairman will give a target number to each

subcommittee. This target represents the total amount that the

subcommittee can budget for the agencies assigned to it. They

can take from one, or give to another, but the total must be at or

below the target.

The budget for an agency is presented to the subcommittee by

someone from OSPB and perhaps by an agency representative.

There may or may not be questions. JLBC staff will provide its

From Idea to Bill to Law

☛

commentary. There may or may not be input from others. Then,

its up to the subcommittee to decide on a budget recommenda-

tion for the agency.

Even though all of the budget units are as-

signed to one of the three subcommittees,

some of the larger or more controversial

budgets may have their hearing with the full

Appropriations committee. Then, the sub-

committee will meet to actually make the

budget recommendation.

Sometimes the subcommittee takes testimony but defers making

a decision for a week or so. In most cases, though, the subcom-

mittee will have heard enough to make a budget recommenda-

tion.

If the House and the Senate subcommittees are meeting jointly,

(as they usually do because it can be a time saving maneuver)

one side or the other will make a motion to recommend adoption

of a particular budget item, with or without changes. Then the

other side will make a motion.

If the motions are identical, the budget for that agency is consid-

ered finalized. If the House and the Senate subcommittees differ

on their budget recommendations, the differences will have to

be reconciled. The reconciliation is generally done by the sub-

committee chairmen.

Consider what this means. A very small subcommittee of a

full committee of less than half the Senate, meeting with an-

other small subcommittee of the House, can effectively de-

termine the budget for a particular agency. If members not

on the subcommittee do not get involved; if they do not make

their concerns and wishes known; they are fairly effectively shut

out of the budget process. The only avenue left to them is to

From Idea to Bill to Law

argue in caucus (read “majority caucus”) for any changes they

would like to make.

Beyond the Subcommittee

Because the subcommittees are small, it is possible for as few as

one or two members philosophically out of tune with the rest of

the body, to make major budget adjustments supporting their in-

dividual goals. And, as noted above, because some relatively

inexperienced legislators invariably end up on the Appropria-

tions committee, they could make honest mistakes in a number

of areas. Finally, leadership in both houses have to present a

budget to their membership that will earn enough votes to pass

muster with a majority of the members.

So, at some time in the session, Senate and House leadership

will “pull” the budget process from the Appropriations commit-

tee and will complete the process themselves. They will consult

with each other and with the governor, and they will consult with

members of their respective caucuses. Eventually the three par-

ties will agree on a budget that satisfies the governor and a ma-

jority of both the House and the Senate. To formally adopt the

budget, a special session of the legislature is called.

The budget special session

It is interesting to note that none of the budget decisions made by

the Appropriations Committee during the regular session will

actually end up being enacted into law during the regular ses-

sion.

The special session will last only a short time, usually from one

to three days, running concurrently with the regular session. The

budget almost always passes without amendments because any

amendment could jeopardize the tenuous consensus between the

Senate, the House and the Governor.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Appendix B

About Lobbyists

For most of the general public the word “lobbyist” has a nega-

tive connotation. There are mental images of cigar chomping big

business or big labor influence peddlers twisting arms and mak-

ing back room deals - or images of under the table money and

plots to punish or reward legislators “in their pocket”.

Through much of Arizona’s history, some of those images may

have been true. In extremely rare instances, vestiges may still be

in the process of dying out. The last two decades though, high-

lighted by Azscam, have been a period of change in the role of

professional lobbyists and most observers will agree that poli-

tics at the capitol has never been cleaner than it is today.

Also, it should be remembered that each of us is represented by

dozens of lobbyists whether we know it or not. There are lobby-

ing organizations for the young and for the old, there are lobby-

ists for landlords who own apartments and for tenants who live

in them, there are lobbyists for police and for those who have

run afoul of the law.

Indeed, state law requires that anyone giving testimony on a bill,

who does not represent himself only, must register with the Sec-

retary of State as a lobbyist. This means that if you appear on

behalf of yourself and the neighbors on your block, you are tech-

nically a lobbyist and must register. Arizona has some of the

strictest rules in the nation concerning lobbyists and those rules

help explain why the total number of registered lobbyists ex-

ceeds 7,500.

To some involved with the legislative process, lobbyists may be

“evil”, but, if so, they are a “necessary evil”. In the final analy-

sis, lobbyists are simply representatives who act on behalf of

From Idea to Bill to Law

others. Lobbyists from both sides of an issue provide additional

information and additional perspectives on the merits of proposed

legislation. They are as much a part of the political process as the

staff members who provide research and background informa-

tion to the legislators. In the end, it is often information supplied

by lobbyists for both sides which makes the difference in help-

ing the Senator decide how to vote.

For the purpose of this booklet, therefore, the term “lobbyist”

includes not only any cigar chomping arm twisters who might

still remain, it also includes the retirees, the mothers, the renters,

the golfers and hundreds of other everyday citizens who take

time from their schedules to testify for or against prospective

legislation.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Appendix C

Special Sessions

In addition to the two regular sessions of each legislature, there

are also gatherings of the legislature in what are known as “Spe-

cial Sessions.”

It would be nice if, once the legislature adjourns, it could stay

adjourned until the next January. Each year, however, there are

needs which cannot wait until the next regular session.

A special session can be called in one of two ways. In Article IV,

Part 2, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, the legislature can

call itself into special session by presenting a petition to the gov-

ernor which contains the signatures of at least 2/3 of the mem-

bers of each house. At this type of special session any and all

matters may be addressed.

In Article V, Section 4, the Governor is empowered to call the

legislature into special session. At this type of special session the

legislature can consider only those items specifically mentioned

in the Governor’s “call.”

There are no limits to the number of special sessions which can

be held. Special sessions can be held during a regular session —

in fact a special session can be held while another special ses-

sion is going on.

The budget of our state is almost always passed during a special

session. Because no law can take effect until 90 days after the

legislature adjourns, and because in recent years the legislature

has adjourned in mid-April, a budget passed during the regular

session would not become law until sometime in July. The only

problem is, the fiscal year of the state begins on July 1.

From Idea to Bill to Law

☛

So, during the regular session, all of the work necessary to pass a

budget takes place. Then, sometime before March 31st, a special

session is called just to pass the budget. The legislature simply

moves back and forth between regular session and special ses-

sion, depending on what they are working on at the moment.

The Constitution permits appropriation bills

to go into effect immediately upon signa-

ture of the governor, so the 90 day waiting

period doesn’t apply. But, there are always

other bills relating to the budget that do re-

quire the 90 day window. That’s why the

budget is always passed in a special ses-

sion.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Appendix D

Index and Glossary

Ad hoc committee — an informal committee.

ALIS Online — The Internet service provided by the legislature

to make available to the general public most of the

paperwork of the legislature. The ALIS Online address is http://

www.azleg.state.az.us

Amendments — changes to a bill. See pages 40-41.

Bills

Number introduced over time. See page 22.

Summary of 1999 bills. See page 61.

By Request — a caveat to the introduction of a bill by the spon-

sor. See page 25.

Caucus — a) the members of a particular political party in one

branch of the legislature. For example, the Republican Senators

are members of their caucus, the Republican House members

are members of their caucus, and so on. b) a meeting of caucus

members. See pages 50-51.

Committee Chairman, role. See pages 38-40.

Committee of the Whole — a gathering of the Senate at which

time bills are debated by the entire body. See pages 51-57.

Conference Committee — a committee consisting of both House

and Senate members, convened to reconcile differently amended

versions of a bill which has passed in both houses. See pages 63-

64.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Court decisions, and effect on legislation. See page 20.

Engrossing — merging amendments with a bill prior to third or

final reading. See page 58.

Final Reading of Bills — Similar to third reading, but applies to

bills which have been sent to the Senate from the House.

First Reading of Bills — a largely ceremonial step introducing

a bill for the first time to the entire Senate. See pages 34-36.

Hopper — a box in the office of the Senate Secretary into which

intro sets are placed when a bill is ready to be filed. See page 33.

Interim — the period between regular sessions of the legisla-

ture. See page 16.

Interim Committee — a committee which meets between the

adjournment of one session of the legislature and the beginning

of another. Interim committees often meet to gather facts and

hear testimony. What is learned at these hearings often serves as

the basis for proposed legislation for the next legislative session.

Most interim committees are also joint committees. See page 17.

Intro Set — paperwork which authorizes a sponsor to file a bill.

See pages 29-31.

Joint Committee — a committee which has members of both

the Senate and the House of Representatives. Some joint com-

mittees also have members of the general public. See page 18.

Legislative Council — a staffing arm of the legislature, prima-

rily charged with the actual drafting of proposed legislation. See

pages 27-29.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Pages -- Extremely dedicated young men and women who work

incredibly long hours for miserably low pay. They run and fetch,

they gopher, they clean up, they sit and wait patiently through

interminable debate for the opportunity to serve. We absolutely

could not get along without them. Some of the best pages grow

up to be chapters.

Reconsider, motion to — a parliamentary maneuver aimed at

getting a second chance to vote on a bill. See page 58.

Rules Committee, role. See pages 49-50.

Second Reading of Bills — The step in which newly introduced

bills are assigned to a standing committee. See pages 36-37.

Select committee — a committee which has one or more mem-

bers from the private sector. See page 18.

Senate Calendar — a listing of bills ready for third or final

reading. See page 57.

Session — a meeting of the legislature. Each two year legisla-

ture has two regular sessions. Each session begins on the second

Monday in January and adjourns when its business is done. See

also Appendix B.

Session Law — a) a book prepared each year which contains

those sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes which were

changed as a result of legislation enacted. b) temporary or non-

permanent law, such as a law authorizing a study committee of

limited duration.

Sine Die — the end of a legislative session. See page 64.

Special Session — See Appendix B.

From Idea to Bill to Law

Sponsor — a member of the House or the Senate who gives

permission to have a bill introduced in his name. See pages 23-

25.

Standing Committee — At the beginning of the first year of

each new legislature the President of the Senate makes appoint-

ments to various standing committees. These appointments are

generally for the full length of the two year legislative term. As

commonly referred to, standing committees review bills and con-

duct inquiries as part of the early stages of the legislative pro-

cess. Technically speaking, special committees are also standing

committees. See page 25.

Strike Everything amendment — essentially, replacing one bill

with another. See pages 41-42.

Third Reading of Bills — The point at which Senators cast their

votes in favor or against a particular bill. See pages 58-59. See

also Final Reading.

Vehicle Bill — a bill which acts as a “placeholder” in case an

important bill fails. See pages 31-32.