Senate Joint Resolutions 35 and 37: The Path of Constitutional Amendments
The legislative journey of constitutional amendments often involves multiple attempts, shifting political alliances, and rigorous voting processes. In recent years, the state legislature has grappled with proposals mirroring Proposition 16, leading to the introduction of two distinct measures: Senate Joint Resolution 35 and Senate Joint Resolution 37.
The Initial Attempt: Senate Joint Resolution 35
In 2023, the state senate took the first step toward implementing the same constitutional amendments proposed in Proposition 16. This effort was formalized as Senate Joint Resolution 35. The measure saw strong support within the senate, passing with a decisive vote of 29-1.
However, the momentum stalled when the resolution reached the state house. In a stark contrast to the senate's approval, the state house rejected the resolution with an 88-0 vote. During this session, 54 members voted present and 7 were absent.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]The Reintroduction: Senate Joint Resolution 37
Despite the previous failure in the house, the amendment was reintroduced in 2025 without any changes to its language. This new iteration was designated as Senate Joint Resolution 37.
The state senate once again showed support for the measure, passing it with a vote of 28-3. The voting pattern revealed a complex political landscape: while Republicans provided unanimous support, the three "No" votes came from Democrats. Notably, 8 Democrats broke party lines to join the Republicans in supporting the resolution.
Legal Context of Voter Citizenship
To understand the stakes of these amendments, it is important to look at the existing legal framework. Prior to the passing of the proposition, state law mandated that all individuals must attest to their citizenship during their initial voter registration process.
Under these regulations, voting as a non-citizen was classified as a second-degree felony, a serious criminal offense reflecting the state's strict stance on eligibility requirements for elections.
Key Facts
- SJR 35 (2023): Passed the senate 29-1 but was rejected by the house 88-0.
- SJR 37 (2025): Reintroduced without changes; passed the senate 28-3.
- Political Split: SJR 37 saw unanimous Republican support and a split among Democrats.
- Existing Law: Voter registration requires citizenship attestation.
- Legal Penalty: Non-citizen voting was previously categorized as a second-degree felony.
| Resolution | Year | Senate Result | House Result | Status of Text |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJR 35 | 2023 | Passed (29-1) | Rejected (88-0) | Original |
| SJR 37 | 2025 | Passed (28-3) | Pending/Not Listed | Unchanged from SJR 35 |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the relationship between SJR 35 and SJR 37?
Senate Joint Resolution 37 is a reintroduction of Senate Joint Resolution 35, presented without any changes to the original text.
How did the state house react to SJR 35?
The state house rejected SJR 35 with a vote of 88-0, with 54 members voting present and 7 absent.
What was the voting breakdown for SJR 37 in the senate?
SJR 37 passed 28-3. Republicans were unanimously in favor, while Democrats were split, with three voting against and eight voting in support.
What were the citizenship requirements for voters prior to the proposition?
Voters were required by state law to attest to their citizenship when registering to vote for the first time.
What was the penalty for non-citizen voting under previous state law?
Voting as a non-citizen was considered a second-degree felony.