House Bill 2006 amends Oregon law governing the Legislative Counsel’s workload by placing caps on how many legislative measures may be drafted for a regular session that begins in an odd-numbered year. It limits individual legislators to 25 measure requests and legislative committees to 15, while allowing the Senate President and House Speaker to authorize additional requests. The bill also exempts the Joint Committee on Ways and Means from those limits.
For executive and judicial branch requesters, the bill sets a combined cap of 400 measures for the Governor and state agencies, with an exception for Department of Administrative Services bills implementing the Governor’s fiscal recommendations. It also limits the Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, and Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries to 25 requests each, and the Judicial Department to 100 requests. The measure preserves existing authority for Legislative Counsel to prepare measures, provide research, and issue legal opinions, while narrowing the volume of bill drafting requests in long sessions.
Impact
The bill would amend ORS 173.130, directly changing the statutory limits on who may request bill drafting from the Legislative Counsel and how many requests may be made in odd-year regular sessions. It affects legislators, legislative committees, the Governor, state agencies, several statewide elected officials, and the Judicial Department by imposing numerical caps and preserving specified exceptions and authorization procedures. The practical effect is to manage drafting workload and prioritize legislative counsel resources during the busiest sessions.
Sentiment
With no committee transcript or recorded votes available, the public record provided does not show detailed debate or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears administrative and procedural rather than ideological, suggesting a generally neutral or managerial purpose focused on workload control and session efficiency. The inclusion of exceptions for leadership and key budget-related measures indicates an effort to balance limits with flexibility.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the new caps themselves and whether they could restrict lawmakers’ or agencies’ ability to prepare needed legislation in a long session. Legislators and committees may view the 25- and 15-bill limits as constraining, while executive branch offices and agencies may object to the 400-bill combined cap if it affects policy development. On the other hand, legislative leadership and the Joint Committee on Ways and Means retain special authorization or exemption authority, which may reduce opposition from institutional actors who need flexibility.