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 29 proposes an amendment to Rule 18 of the Idaho House of Representatives rules governing a “call of the House.” A call of the House is a parliamentary procedure used to compel attendance when members are absent. Under the resolution, one-third of members present may order a call, after which the Sergeant at Arms must close and lock the doors to the east wing of the third floor of the state Capitol building, prevent members from leaving the chamber, and help bring in absent members. The resolution also preserves the existing requirement that the House may not conduct ordinary business while under call, except for limited motions related to suspending the call or excusing absentees, and it updates the form of the warrant used to direct the Sergeant at Arms to take absent members into custody.
The measure also clarifies chamber procedure during a call by stating that members must remain at their floor desks unless the presiding officer puts the House at ease. It further provides that once the Sergeant at Arms reports all absent-without-leave members are present, the House may either dispense with the call or proceed with regular business by majority vote of the entire membership. The resolution retains the rule that no motion for a call may be entered after voting by ayes and nays has begun.
In practical terms, the resolution amends internal House rules rather than state statutes. Its impact is limited to legislative procedure in the Idaho House of Representatives, specifically the authority of the Speaker, the Sergeant at Arms, and members during a call of the House. It does not create or change public law affecting private parties, but it does formalize chamber security and attendance enforcement procedures within the House rules.
The overall sentiment appears supportive, as reflected by final passage and the absence of committee opposition in the provided materials. The House adopted the resolution after debate on the floor, with the final recorded vote showing approval by a majority of members. The vote history suggests the measure was broadly accepted as an internal procedural update, though not unanimously.
The main point of contention appears to have been the use of stronger attendance enforcement measures, including locking the east-wing doors and the continued authority to bring absent members to the chamber. Members voting against the resolution likely objected to the increased rigidity of the call procedure or to the symbolic and practical implications of restricting movement within the Capitol. Even so, the resolution ultimately passed, indicating that support for tightening or clarifying House attendance rules outweighed the objections.
HR029 amends Rule 18 of the Idaho House of Representatives, changing only internal legislative procedure and not the Idaho Code. It authorizes locking the east wing doors of the third floor of the Capitol during a call of the House, clarifies where members must remain while under call, and updates the warrant language used by the Speaker and Sergeant at Arms to compel attendance. The resolution affects House members, the Speaker, and the Sergeant at Arms, but does not directly regulate the public or alter substantive state law.
The bill appears to have been generally well received in the House, with final passage by a clear majority and no evidence of committee resistance in the materials provided. The vote history shows support for the resolution as a procedural housekeeping measure, though the presence of a notable minority of nays indicates some disagreement. Overall, the sentiment was favorable toward adopting the rule change, with the opposition limited to members who were uncomfortable with the stricter attendance and chamber-control provisions.
The likely points of contention were the enhanced enforcement mechanisms in a call of the House, especially the requirement to lock the east-wing doors and the continued ability to detain or compel absent members. Opponents may have viewed these provisions as overly restrictive, unnecessary, or symbolic of heavy-handed chamber discipline. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have favored clearer and more enforceable attendance rules to ensure the House could maintain quorum and conduct business efficiently.