say bye to your front plate IL!!
I completely forgot to update this thread: the bill has been referred back to the rules committee.
You may recall that I consider the rules committee to be the place where bills go to die? I have a suspicion this one won't be going anywhere. If that bothers you, now would be the time to call the representatives sponsoring the bill with words of support, and perhaps ask what you can do to help.
You may recall that I consider the rules committee to be the place where bills go to die? I have a suspicion this one won't be going anywhere. If that bothers you, now would be the time to call the representatives sponsoring the bill with words of support, and perhaps ask what you can do to help.
oh fudge!
Did the window tint law ever get kicked back to this rules committee (aka bill graveyard)?
I'm not terribly concerned with this one, I have a removable front plate (~$12 in parts) and don't plan on putting holes in my bumper anytime soon.
I'm not terribly concerned with this one, I have a removable front plate (~$12 in parts) and don't plan on putting holes in my bumper anytime soon.
No, it spent a short time in Rules (like a lot of bills, initially), then pretty much flew through the House. The Senate assigned it to their Transportation committee, and then there was some back and forth between the House and Senate. But, there was motion through most of it.
The fact that it got bumped back to Rules suggests to me that the sponsors couldn't get the folks in Vehicles and Safety on board. It was referred back to Rules under House Rule 19(a), which states:
In other words, since the Vehicles and Safety subcommittee couldn't come to agreement on it, it automatically bumped back to Rules, where it'll probably stay unless someone takes up the fight for it.
The fact that it got bumped back to Rules suggests to me that the sponsors couldn't get the folks in Vehicles and Safety on board. It was referred back to Rules under House Rule 19(a), which states:
Originally Posted by Illinois House Rules
(House Rule 19)
19. Re-Referrals to the Rules Committee.
(a) All legislative measures that fail to meet the applicable deadline established under Rule 9 for reporting to the House by a standing committee or a special committee, for Third Reading and passage, or for consideration of joint action motions and conference committee reports are automatically re-referred to the Rules Committee unless: (i) the deadline has been suspended or revised by the Speaker, with re-referral to the Rules Committee to occur if the bill has not been reported to the House in accordance with a revised deadline; or (ii) the Rules Committee has issued a written exception to the Clerk with respect to a particular bill before the reporting deadline, with re-referral to occur, if at all, in accordance with the written exception.
19. Re-Referrals to the Rules Committee.
(a) All legislative measures that fail to meet the applicable deadline established under Rule 9 for reporting to the House by a standing committee or a special committee, for Third Reading and passage, or for consideration of joint action motions and conference committee reports are automatically re-referred to the Rules Committee unless: (i) the deadline has been suspended or revised by the Speaker, with re-referral to the Rules Committee to occur if the bill has not been reported to the House in accordance with a revised deadline; or (ii) the Rules Committee has issued a written exception to the Clerk with respect to a particular bill before the reporting deadline, with re-referral to occur, if at all, in accordance with the written exception.
After almost five months of inactivity sitting in the Rules Committee, my monitoring script noticed an update this morning: HB4888 added a new chief co-sponsor, Rep. Michael G. Connelly.
This seems unusual to me; a new co-sponsor after half a year of dead air makes me think that some behind-the-scenes discussion might be happening again. Once again, if you care about this issue, send an email (or better yet, make a phone call) to each of the bill's co-sponsors, so they know they aren't wasting their time. Just to make it easy for you, here's contact information for the sponsors:
This seems unusual to me; a new co-sponsor after half a year of dead air makes me think that some behind-the-scenes discussion might be happening again. Once again, if you care about this issue, send an email (or better yet, make a phone call) to each of the bill's co-sponsors, so they know they aren't wasting their time. Just to make it easy for you, here's contact information for the sponsors:
As a reminder, this is the kind of opposition the bill had back in January.