SCR 1 adopts the Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly for California’s 2025–26 Regular Session. The text codifies how bills are prepared and introduced, how committees operate (including joint and conference committees), printing and distribution limits, deadlines and calendars, press accreditation, subpoenas, ethics, and the powers of the Joint Rules Committee and other permanent joint committees.
Why this matters: these rules are the nuts-and-bolts governing how legislation moves (or stalls) this session. They set notice periods, publication and reprinting obligations, committee procedures that affect debate and timing, and centralized authorities (Rules committees, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Analyst, California State Auditor) that control access, cost estimates, and subpoena authority.
Compliance officers, legislative staff, lobbyists, journalists, and agencies responding to committees should read the operational details closely — they reshape workflow, public access, and administrative burden for the session.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a comprehensive procedural code for the two houses covering committee structure and joint committees, bill preparation (including mandatory Legislative Counsel digests and reprints after amendments), printing/distribution limits, calendars and filing deadlines, and rules for conference committees and public access to committee business.
Who It Affects
Members and committee chairs, legislative staff (Engrossing & Enrolling, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Analyst), the State Printer, the press (accreditation and distribution limits), state agencies receiving subpoenas or audit requests, and any author submitting bills that trigger fiscal or special-notice provisions.
Why It Matters
The rules lock in operational requirements that determine timing, transparency, and central gatekeeping this session — from 30‑day print waits to Consent Calendar criteria and conference committee openness — so procedural compliance, scheduling, and resource planning are now governed by this text.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SCR 1 is a full package of joint procedural rules intended to operate as the framework for legislative business during the 2025–26 Regular Session. It prescribes how bills must be drafted and presented (including mandatory Legislative Counsel digests printed on the first page), how amendments are to be shown in print, and when bills must be reprinted after amendments.
The rules require specific notification and reprint practices so that both houses and the public can see precisely what a bill changes before it reaches final action.
On committee work, the resolution defines standing committees and authorizes joint meetings when parallel bills exist in both houses. It sets notice and hearing requirements (including multi-day Daily File notices), limits how often and under what circumstances a committee may set a bill for hearing, and requires rollcall votes and records for standing committees.
There is a specific Consent Calendar process: a bill must be unanimously recommended by the reporting committee, have no opposition present at the final committee action, and be requested by its author to be placed on the Calendar; if amended on the floor it loses that status.Conference committee procedures are tightly spelled out. Each house’s conferees must reflect the majority/minority position on the contested point (typically two majority-side members and one minority member), conference reports require minimum votes to be adopted, and many conference committee meetings and reports must be public and noticed in advance.
The rules make clear which conference activities are open to the public and which may be treated as nonsubstantive. They also establish the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and Joint Legislative Audit Committee roles, vest duties in the Legislative Analyst and California State Auditor for cost and audit work, and set the process for citizen cost impact reports.The Joint Rules Committee is given a broad set of administrative powers: allocating space, approving certain litigation appearances for Legislative Counsel, setting policies for joint committee funds, appointing joint committee chairs, and approving priority regulatory reviews.
Ethics and conflict-of-interest rules for members and staff are included, limiting outside employment and requiring disclosure or abstention where a member has a personal interest. Press accreditation rules are formalized (application, authentication by the Capitol Correspondents Association) and violations carry graduated penalties.
Finally, the rules set calendars, filing deadlines, printing and distribution caps (including limits on free copies), and procedures for issuing subpoenas and authorizing them through Rules committee approval.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Every bill must carry a Legislative Counsel’s digest printed on the first page; the Legislative Counsel must prepare corrected digests when material errors are identified and can order corrected bill prints when warranted (Rules 8.5, 8.7).
A bill generally must be in print for 30 days before committee or floor action (a bill published on the internet counts as 'in print'), subject to suspension or defined urgency procedures (Rule 55).
Consent Calendar placement requires a unanimous do-pass (or do-pass-as-amended) committee vote with no opposition present and a written request by the author; any floor amendment removes the bill from the Consent Calendar (Rules 22.1–22.3).
Conference committees (non‑budget bills) must include two members who voted with the majority on the disputed point and one from the minority; Budget Bill conference committees may include up to eight members and follow different majority rules (Rule 28.1).
The State Printer’s output is capped: no more than 2,500 copies of any bill will be printed unless otherwise provided, and distribution of free copies is limited (Rule 13).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory Legislative Counsel digests and corrected prints
These provisions make the Legislative Counsel’s digest integral to bill introduction: a bill cannot be introduced without it, and the digest must appear on the first page. When a bill is amended, an amended digest must be prepared and printed atop the amended bill. If the digest contains a material error, the Legislative Counsel prepares a corrected digest and may, at the request of Senate or Assembly leadership, order a corrected print of the bill. Practically, this centralizes responsibility for accurate summaries of statutory change with Legislative Counsel and makes corrected reprints an available remedy when errors would mislead members or the public.
Formatting, marking changes, and fiscal referrals
The rules standardize how new and deleted text must be presented for amendment and reprint (underlines/italics for additions; strikeout for deletions) and require rereferral to fiscal committees when a bill appropriates funds or has substantial fiscal effects. That combination ensures that bills are readable for later amendment and that fiscal implications trigger committee review — a procedural gate designed to catch budgetary consequences early and route them to fiscal specialists.
Consent Calendar: how a bill becomes 'uncontested'
A committee may certify a bill as 'uncontested' only when it receives a unanimous do-pass recommendation from members present, no one present voiced opposition to the final text, and the author requested placement on the Consent Calendar. The rule protects expedited floor passage for noncontroversial measures but builds in procedural safeguards: any objection, floor amendment, or lack of unanimity strips the bill of Consent Calendar status and sends it back to the Third Reading File.
Conference committees: composition, public access, and report mechanics
The rules prescribe how conference committees are appointed (three members normally, special rules for Budget Bill), require that conferees reflect majority/minority votes on disputed points, and set vote thresholds to adopt reports. Many conference meetings must be open and publicly noticed; reports require reprinting of bills incorporating agreed amendments and must meet specific notice and timing requirements before adoption. The procedures constrain closed-door dealmaking by embedding public notice and limiting how often new conferees may be appointed for the same bill.
Public meeting requirements and time limits for conference reports
Conference committees may not meet in private when considering substantive changes; the Legislative Counsel must label proposed reports as 'substantive' or 'nonsubstantive.' Notices for public meetings generally must appear in the Daily File one calendar day in advance, and conference reports must be available on the internet for a set period (72 hours) before consideration, with narrow waivers permitted. These mechanics create predictable windows for public and stakeholder review of last‑minute compromises.
Joint Rules Committee: powers, staffing, and oversight of joint committees
The Joint Rules Committee is empowered to coordinate between houses, allocate legislative space, appoint joint committee chairs (except for two powerful budget/audit committees), set joint committee administrative policies, and approve certain transactions (e.g., priority regulatory reviews). It also controls joint committee funds and may deploy staff to assist other joint committees. This centralization gives the Joint Rules Committee significant administrative authority over cross‑house operations and budgets.
Conflict-of-interest and outside employment limits for Members
The conflict-of-interest rule prohibits members from engaging in employment or activities that would impair independence of judgment or require disclosure of confidential legislative information. It forbids accepting compensation for activities related to the legislative process (with narrow exceptions), constrains advocacy before licensing/regulatory boards, and prescribes disclosure or abstention when members have personal interests in legislation. Enforcement connects to state law sanctions and places practical limits on members’ outside work while in office.
Printing, distribution, and the 30‑day printing wait
The State Printer must follow Joint Rules Committee directions and is limited to printing no more than 2,500 copies of any bill unless otherwise provided. Distribution of free copies is strictly capped for non-legislative recipients. Separately, a non‑budget bill cannot be acted upon until it has been in print for 30 days (internet publication counts), subject to specified suspensions. Together, these mechanics are intended to balance member access and deliberation time against printing costs and distribution logistics.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Legislators seeking predictability — the rules standardize drafting and notice timelines (digests, reprints, 30‑day print rule), which helps authors and floor managers plan amendment and vote schedules.
- Public advocates, reporters, and researchers — mandatory digests, Daily File notices, public conference committee meetings, and 72‑hour online availability of conference reports increase visibility into last‑minute changes and support timely scrutiny.
- Legislative Counsel and Legislative Analyst — the rules formalize and expand their roles (authorized corrected digests, citizen cost impact requests, and Legislative Analyst duties), giving these offices clearer instruction and institutional footing to influence drafting and fiscal analysis.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative and administrative staff (Engrossing & Enrolling Clerk, State Printer, committee staff) — reprinting requirements, corrected digests, and printing limits increase workload and operating costs for publication and distribution.
- State agencies and private entities subject to subpoenas or audits — the rules make subpoena issuance possible (with Rules committee permission) and assign audit work to the State Auditor under Joint Legislative Audit Committee direction, potentially increasing investigative demands.
- Authors of bills with fiscal impacts — mandatory referral to fiscal committees and the 30‑day in‑print clock can delay fast action and require additional analyses (e.g., citizen cost impact) that consume staff time and possibly budget for analyses.
- Smaller news organizations and outside requesters — strict caps on free bill copies and limited free distribution may reduce their ready access to printed materials unless they pay for copies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is procedural transparency and deliberation versus speed and flexibility: the Joint Rules impose publication, notice, and committee-review safeguards that protect public scrutiny and fiscal oversight, but those same safeguards create bottlenecks and give Rules committees and Legislative Counsel broad gatekeeping authority — a trade-off between preventing rushed, opaque lawmaking and enabling rapid legislative responses.
The Joint Rules layer procedural uniformity onto inherently political work and create multiple centralized checkpoints that can both protect deliberation and gatekeep access. For example, the Legislative Counsel’s control over digests and the power of the Rules committees to authorize subpoenas or waive notice requirements concentrate procedural discretion; that centralization can prevent chaotic floor surprises but also convert routine scheduling questions into committee-level decisions that delay action.
Similarly, open‑meeting requirements for conference committees increase transparency, but the rules carve out exceptions for 'nonsubstantive' reports and budget committee practices — leaving room for dispute over what counts as substantive and under what circumstances public notice may be limited.
Operationally, the printing and distribution caps plus reprinting obligations create predictable costs and constraints but raise implementation questions. Who funds frequent corrected reprints and extensive online publication?
The rules anticipate some cost-sharing (printing receipts are split between clerks), but they do not resolve resource shortfalls that would arise if many high‑profile bills require repeated corrected prints or extended Legislative Analyst studies. Finally, several rules rely on discretionary determinations (e.g., 'substantial' fiscal effect, 'urgent need' to waive waiting periods, or the Legislative Counsel’s label of a report as 'substantive' vs. 'nonsubstantive'), and those qualitative judgments could spawn inter-branch fights or litigation when stakeholders read them differently.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.