Proposes and amendment to House Rule 6 to add certain bill introduction limits and to require certain transparency in the origin of legislation.
Summary
House Resolution 18 proposes an amendment to Rule 6 of the Idaho House of Representatives rules governing bill introduction. The resolution would tighten and clarify limits on how many bills a House member may sponsor in a session, establish priority in drafting requests for members who have not reached the limit, and restrict reintroduction of the same or substantially similar bill after it fails in either chamber until after the next regular annual session. It also preserves exceptions for appropriation bills, state agency bills, and sponsor exemptions granted by the Speaker or a delegated committee chair.
The resolution further adds a transparency requirement for bills that do not originate from a member’s own initiative. In those cases, the statement of purpose would need to identify the lobbyist, agency, entity, or political organization that proposed the legislation, unless the idea came from an unaffiliated constituent. It also requires the statement of purpose to label lead sponsors and other sponsors, and to note when a sponsor has received an exemption from the bill-limit rule.
Impact
If adopted, HR018 would change the internal rules of the Idaho House rather than the state’s statutory code. It would affect how legislation is drafted, sponsored, and reintroduced in the House, and it would impose new disclosure obligations in bill statements of purpose. The practical effect would be to limit bill volume by individual members, reduce repeated introduction of failed measures, and increase visibility into the outside sources behind proposed legislation.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural reform focused on efficiency and transparency. The stated purpose suggests support for clearer sponsorship rules and greater accountability in the legislative process. No contrary public sentiment is documented in the supplied record, so the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s own rationale.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the new limits on bill introductions and the requirement to disclose who proposed a bill. Members who rely on frequent bill drafting or who want flexibility to reintroduce failed ideas may view the limits as restrictive, while supporters are likely to see them as a way to manage workload and discourage repetitive legislation. The transparency provision could also be controversial because it may be seen as exposing lobbying influence, but it could also raise questions about how to classify proposals from constituents versus outside organizations.