SB 313 amends Kentucky law governing official dates of recognition by updating KRS 2.112. The bill designates several months and observances with honor in the Commonwealth, including National Agriculture Month in March, National Soybean Month in April, National Beef Month in May, National Dairy Month in June, National Poultry Month in September, and National Pork Month in October. It also recognizes National Future Farmers of America (FFA) Week, National 4-H Week, and National Agriculture (Ag) Day.
In addition, the bill adds June as Kentucky History Month, creating a new state-recognized observance focused on the Commonwealth’s history. The measure is largely ceremonial and does not create regulatory programs, funding obligations, or enforcement provisions; instead, it updates the state’s list of honorary designations for educational and commemorative purposes.
Impact
The bill would amend KRS 2.112, Kentucky’s statute listing honorary months, weeks, and days of recognition, by adding and reaffirming agricultural observances and establishing Kentucky History Month in June. Its practical legal effect is limited to state recognition and public observance; it does not alter substantive rights, impose duties on private parties, or change agency authority. The affected groups are primarily agricultural organizations, schools, youth programs such as FFA and 4-H, and historical or civic groups that may use the designations for awareness and outreach.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill: the Senate passed it on third reading by a 38-0 vote. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous vote indicates the measure was noncontroversial and likely viewed as a routine recognition bill. The overall sentiment appears favorable, especially among supporters of agriculture education, Kentucky heritage, and related commemorative observances.
Contention
No specific opposition or controversy is reflected in the available materials. Because the bill is limited to honorary designations, there are no apparent disputes over fiscal impact, regulatory burden, or policy tradeoffs. Any discussion would likely center on whether the added observances are appropriate or redundant, but the unanimous Senate vote indicates no notable contention in the recorded action.