CALL OF THE HOUSE – Proposes an amendment to House Rule 18 to provide for the doors to the east wing of the third floor of the state capitol building to be locked during a call of the House and to provide for members to return to their floor desks when business is transacted.
House Resolution 23 proposes a change to the Idaho House of Representatives’ internal rules, specifically Rule 18 governing a “call of the House.” Under the resolution, when a call is ordered, the Sergeant at Arms would be directed to close and lock the doors to the east wing of the third floor of the state capitol building, and members would not be allowed to leave the chamber. The resolution also clarifies that while the House is under call, members must return to their floor desks whenever business is being transacted.
The measure largely restates and formalizes existing procedures for compelling attendance and managing House business during a call, including roll call, reporting absentees, and the limited motions allowed while the call is in effect. It also preserves the existing authority to bring in absent members and the conditions under which a call may be suspended or regular business resumed. The resolution includes a revised form warrant for the arrest of absent members, reflecting the procedural changes in the rule.
Because this is a House resolution amending chamber rules rather than state statutory law, its impact is limited to the internal operations of the Idaho House of Representatives. It does not create or change public law affecting private parties, but it does affect legislative procedure, member attendance enforcement, and the authority of the Speaker and Sergeant at Arms during a call of the House.
The available context suggests the bill was not controversial in the sense of recorded opposition, but it was referred back to the Judiciary, Rules & Administration Committee after a unanimous-consent action, indicating the chamber wanted further committee consideration or revision. The overall sentiment appears procedural and administrative rather than ideological, with the proposal framed as a housekeeping change to clarify how the House manages attendance and floor conduct during a call.
Notable points of discussion are the locking of the east wing doors, the requirement that members return to their desks during business, and the continued use of arrest warrants for absent members. These provisions may raise questions about enforcement, chamber access, and the balance between order and member freedom of movement, but no explicit opposition or debate is provided in the available record.
HR023 would amend Rule 18 of the Idaho House of Representatives’ rules, changing only internal legislative procedure rather than Idaho Code. It would authorize locking the east wing doors of the third floor capitol area during a call of the House, require members to remain in or return to their floor desks when business is conducted, and update the warrant language used to compel absent members to return. The practical effect is to strengthen and clarify attendance enforcement and chamber control during a call of the House.
The available record reflects a procedural, nonpartisan tone. There are no recorded votes or committee objections in the provided materials, and the measure appears to have been handled as an internal rules matter. The unanimous-consent action to return the resolution to the Judiciary, Rules & Administration Committee suggests the House was comfortable with the concept but wanted further committee review or refinement before final adoption.
The main points of potential contention are the increased physical restriction on members during a call of the House, especially the directive to lock the east wing doors, and the continued authority to compel absent members through arrest warrants. Those provisions could be viewed as strengthening discipline and attendance enforcement, but also as raising concerns about member access, autonomy, and the severity of enforcement mechanisms. No specific legislators or factions are identified as opposing these provisions in the available context.