Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (text: CR S80)
This resolution changes the Senate's internal rules to require a waiting period before the Senate may consider any measure: one session day for every 20 pages of the measure, plus one session day for any remaining pages. It creates a point of order that any Senator can raise if the required reading time has not passed and bars motions to table that point of order. Waiving that point of order requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of Senators and any waiver motion is limited to three hours of debate split equally.
This is a Senate simple resolution that governs only Senate procedure and is not law and is not sent to the President. Waiving the point of order requires three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, waiver debate is limited to three hours equally divided, and a motion to table the point of order is not allowed.
Senate Resolution 18 requires the Senate to wait one session day per 20 pages (plus one extra day for any remaining pages) after a measure’s introduction before considering it.
Any Senator may raise a point of order that the requirement is unmet; motions to table such points are barred.
Waiving the requirement needs three-fifths of Senators, with up to three hours of debate equally divided, and waiver motions are not amendable.
Technically implementable as a Senate rule but materially limits floor flexibility; passage depends on Senate appetite to bind its own procedures.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution functions as an internal Senate procedural rule that sets a clear, specific minimum waiting period tied to measure length and provides immediate enforcement and waiver procedures. It specifies key mechanics but omits several operational definitions and administrative details needed for smooth, unambiguous application.
Transparency vs speed: Liberals fear delays; conservatives welcome slowdown
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Transparency vs speed: Liberals fear delays; conservatives welcome slowdown
Supports the goal of transparency and adequate time for review, but worried this rule could be used to obstruct urgent or progressive legislation.
Concerned the page-count formula and waiver threshold may create procedural barriers.
Would favor explicit emergency and civil-rights exceptions.
Sees the resolution as a reasonable transparency measure that promotes deliberation, but recognizes tradeoffs with legislative speed.
Wants clear definitions and practical, narrowly drawn emergency waivers.
Would weigh procedural benefits against potential gridlock.
Favors the resolution as a restraint on rapid, surprise, or omnibus lawmaking and as a tool to force deliberation.
Views the three-fifths waiver as protection against abuse.
May seek tight enforcement and limited exceptions for real emergencies.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically implementable as a Senate rule but materially limits floor flexibility; passage depends on Senate appetite to bind its own procedures.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Transparency vs speed: Liberals fear delays; conservatives welcome slowdown
Technically implementable as a Senate rule but materially limits floor flexibility; passage depends on Senate appetite to bind its own proc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution functions as an internal Senate procedural rule that sets a clear, specific minimum waiting period tied to measure length and provides immediate enforcement and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.