Concurrent resolutions

Definition

Concurrent resolutions are legislative measures adopted by both chambers of a state legislature, expressing opinions or making decisions on matters that do not require formal law or changes to existing statutes. They are significant in the context of executive-legislative relations as they reflect the collaborative stance of the legislature regarding various issues, often signaling the legislature's position on state policies or actions without necessitating the governor's approval.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Concurrent resolutions cannot be used to create or modify laws, but they can express sentiments on various issues such as budget priorities or public policy.
2. They serve as a way for the legislature to communicate its views or recommendations to the executive branch without requiring a formal statute.
3. Adopting a concurrent resolution may influence executive actions by showing legislative support or opposition to specific policies.
4. These resolutions often play a role in ceremonial matters, such as recognizing significant events or individuals in the state.
5. The process for adopting concurrent resolutions typically requires approval from both the state House and Senate but does not involve the governor's signature.

Review Questions

• How do concurrent resolutions function within the framework of executive-legislative relations in state governments?
  • Concurrent resolutions are essential tools for communication between the legislature and the executive branch. They allow both chambers of the legislature to express collective opinions on policies or issues without needing a governor's approval. This mechanism reinforces legislative authority and can influence executive decisions by showcasing unified legislative sentiment on particular matters.
• What are the key differences between concurrent resolutions and joint resolutions, particularly regarding their implications for state governance?
  • The main difference between concurrent and joint resolutions lies in their legislative power and requirements. While concurrent resolutions require agreement from both legislative chambers, they do not need gubernatorial approval and cannot change laws. Joint resolutions, on the other hand, can have legal effect when signed by the governor, often used for more substantial legislative actions like constitutional amendments or budgetary changes. This distinction underscores how concurrent resolutions primarily serve as expressions of intent rather than direct mechanisms for governance.
• Evaluate the impact of concurrent resolutions on state policy-making and how they might shape executive actions within a state government.
  • Concurrent resolutions can significantly impact state policy-making by providing a platform for legislative consensus on various issues, which can pressure the executive branch to align with those views. By adopting these resolutions, legislatures signal their priorities and can influence budget allocations or administrative actions. The absence of a governor's veto means that these measures reflect direct legislative sentiment, potentially guiding future executive decisions and fostering collaboration between branches. This dynamic can enhance accountability and responsiveness within state governance.

Related terms

joint resolution: A joint resolution is similar to a concurrent resolution but requires approval from both chambers and the signature of the governor to become law, often used for significant policy changes or budgetary matters.

legislative authority: Legislative authority refers to the power given to state legislatures to create laws, enact budgets, and oversee executive actions within their jurisdiction.

executive order: An executive order is a directive issued by the governor that manages operations of the state government and has the force of law, often impacting how concurrent resolutions are implemented.