Proposes an amendment to the Oregon Constitution to extend the duration of a regular session of the Legislative Assembly by one calendar day for each day that the Senate or the House of Representatives fails to achieve a quorum after attempting to do so.
Summary
Senate Joint Resolution 202 proposes a constitutional amendment to change how Oregon’s regular legislative sessions are timed when one chamber cannot reach a quorum. Under current law, regular sessions are limited to 160 days in odd-numbered years and 35 days in even-numbered years, with limited five-day extensions available by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. This resolution would add a new rule requiring the session to be extended by one additional calendar day for each day the Senate or House fails to achieve a quorum after attempting to do so.
The measure does not itself change ordinary statutes; instead, it would amend Article IV, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution. If approved by voters at the next general election, it would alter the constitutional framework governing legislative session length and quorum-related delays, effectively preventing quorum-denial tactics from reducing the amount of time available for legislative business. The proposal is referred to the people for approval or rejection rather than taking effect directly.
Impact
SJR 202 would amend the Oregon Constitution, not the state statutes, by adding a quorum-delay extension to the rules governing regular legislative sessions. The practical effect would be to lengthen a session by one day for each day either chamber fails to achieve a quorum after attempting to do so, thereby preserving legislative time lost to quorum breaks and potentially affecting how the House and Senate schedule, negotiate, and conduct business during a session.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the materials provided. Based on the proposal itself, the measure appears aimed at ensuring the legislature can complete its work despite quorum-related delays, which may appeal to members concerned about legislative efficiency and continuity. Because it is still in committee upon adjournment, the bill’s overall sentiment in the record is best characterized as unresolved and not yet fully tested in public debate.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between deterring quorum-denial tactics and preserving minority-party leverage in the legislative process. Supporters would view the amendment as a way to prevent a quorum break from consuming session days and obstructing legislative work, while opponents may argue it weakens a constitutional tool used to slow or block action on controversial measures. No specific objections or named opponents appear in the provided transcripts or vote history.