Summary#

HCR 204 is a House Concurrent Resolution that would set deadlines for measures prepared before the 2027 regular session; it does not amend an Act. Its stated goal is to set an early schedule for those measures. The supplied status says the resolution failed, so these deadlines do not take effect under HCR 204.

• If adopted, members and committees would have to request drafts from the Office of the Legislative Counsel by 5 p.m. September 11, 2026.
• Each draft request would have to include a brief summary of the problem, proposed solution and other relevant information.
• The Legislative Counsel’s Office would have to deliver the drafts to requesters by 5 p.m. December 1, 2026.
• Requesters would have to submit drafts for introduction to the Senate or House desk by 5 p.m. December 11, 2026.
• The Senate President, House Interim Committee on Rules and Joint Interim Committee on Ways and Means would be exempt from those deadlines.

What it means for you#

• Legislators and committees: If the resolution had taken effect, they would have had to meet the request deadline and provide the required summary information.
• Office of the Legislative Counsel: It would have had to deliver requested drafts by the stated deadline.
• The named exempt offices and committees: They would not have been bound by the three schedule deadlines. The resolution does not exempt them from the requirement to include summary information with draft requests.
• The public: The resolution would not directly change public rights, services, taxes or benefits. It concerns the Legislature’s work process.
• Because HCR 204 failed: It does not establish this schedule. The supplied material does not state what other deadlines, if any, apply.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The resolution would have required the Legislative Counsel’s Office to deliver drafts, but it gives no staffing or cost estimate.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not describe the deadlines under current legislative rules, so the size of the proposed change cannot be verified.
• The resolution does not define “presession-filed measures.”
• It does not state what happens if a requester misses a deadline.
• It does not explain whether the schedule would affect other ways of introducing measures.
• The resolution failed, and the supplied material does not explain whether another rule sets deadlines for the 2027 session.

Case for#

• A shared schedule could give members, committees and legislative staff clear dates for requesting, preparing and submitting measures.
• Requiring a short explanation with each request could give the Legislative Counsel’s Office useful context for drafting.
• Fixed delivery dates could help requesters plan for filing measures before the session.

Case against#

• One concern is that firm deadlines could limit the time available to prepare a measure for presession filing.
• The resolution exempts three named offices or committees from the schedule, but does not explain why those exceptions are needed.
• It does not say what happens when a deadline is missed, leaving the practical effect of the dates unclear.