Is Time Real or just Legislative Dysphoria
The justification repeated throughout the discussion was simple: there just wasn’t enough time. But by the end of the exchange on the Senate floor, a single question revealed something that made that explanation much harder to accept.
Legislative sessions are often described as a race against the clock. Deadlines loom; calendars tighten, and lawmakers warn that time is running out. But the clock wasn’t running out. It is simply being treated as if it were.
Bills Were needlessly Left Behind
March 3rd marked the final day for bills to advance through the Committee of the Whole in the second house during Wyoming’s budget session. When the Senate adjourned that evening, ten bills still remained on the General File, the stage where legislation is debated and amended by the full chamber before moving toward final passage. When the gavel fell, those bills were effectively finished unless the Senate chose to suspend its rules. That requires a two-thirds vote.
Wednesday, March 4th, two senators attempted to give some of those bills one last opportunity.
The Attempt
Senator Troy McKeown rose first and invoked Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, citing Section 187(6)(k) and Section 302. He moved that the Senate resolve itself into Committee of the Whole and establish the order of consideration by placing HB0010, “Sexually Explicit Materials in Libraries” as the first bill to be taken up.
The bill itself addressed concerns raised by many parents across Wyoming regarding sexually explicit materials available to minors in public libraries and school libraries. It sought to establish clearer legal standards and accountability.
Senate President Bo Biteman ruled the motion in order but explained the challenge. Because, Committee of the Whole had not been scheduled or noticed for that day, the motion would require suspending Senate Rule 6-1, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The debate was not about the policy itself. It was about whether the Senate should reopen the process.
Senators defended their beliefs; some with truth, some with fallacies
Several senators rose to speak, each presenting a different perspective on the motion. Senator Troy McKeown, who made the motion, explained the difficulty of speaking to it without debating the bill itself. His argument was straightforward: the Senate had never actually debated the legislation on the floor, and he believed it was a worthwhile bill that deserved consideration.
Senator Chris Rothfuss spoke against the motion. While acknowledging the temptation to suspend the rules to take up a bill, he warned that the Senate must respect its procedural framework.
He noted that every year bills remain on the General File, and every year someone wishes those bills had received debate. But, he argued, that reality is part of the legislative process and should not justify suspending the rules.
Senator Laura Pearson offered a counterpoint. She reminded the chamber that the ability to make such motions is itself part of the legislative process. She emphasized that suspending rules in circumstances like this was not outside the system. “It is one of the tools the system provides.”
Senator Larry Hicks added another layer to the discussion. HB0010, he explained, was not merely an individual bill, it was a joint interim committee bill. That meant legislators from both chambers had spent months studying and working on the issue outside of the legislative session.
This bill is not a first-year bill. It has been worked on for years and was very successful in the other chamber. Because of that extensive interim work, Hicks argued that the Senate should at least allow the committee the opportunity to present and explain that work before the bill died without discussion.
However, Senator Barry Crago pointed out that HB0010 was not the only committee bill that failed to advance. In fact, he said, three committee bills died the previous day, not just one. In his view, the situation was not unique enough to justify suspending the rules.
These bills were HB0084 Falsifying election documents and HB0052 Election-Hand counting for recounts.
Senator Lynn Hutchings spoke in support of the motion. She said she had received significant positive correspondence from constituents regarding the bill and believed the Senate still had time to address it. She stated, in fact, “I have all night.”
Senator Charles Scott, however, ultimately opposed the motion. While he acknowledged the bill contained good policy ideas, he argued that there were structural issues within the bill that would be too complicated to fix in the short time remaining in the session. In his view, it would be better for the bill to return in a future session with improvements.
Senator Wendy Schuler expressed a similar sentiment. She reminded the chamber that many legislators see their own bills, both individual and committee bills, die due to time constraints, even when those bills represent months of work.
Finally, Senator Cale Case reflected on the reality of legislative deadlines. He noted that the final days in the second house are often difficult, and that leadership must make tough decisions about what legislation can realistically move forward.
When the vote was taken, the motion failed 13–18, falling short.
A Final Hail Mary
A final attempt came from Senator Laura Pearson. She rose
and made a similar motion, again citing Mason’s Section 187(6)(k) and Section
302, asking that the Senate resolve itself into Committee of the Whole and
establish the order of consideration by placing HB0157, “Protection of Parental
Rights - Cause of Action” as the first item to be taken up.
This bill addressed a different but equally significant issue. HB0157 would have created a civil cause of action when government entities violate parental rights, providing parents with a legal mechanism to hold government agencies accountable. Supporters argue that while Wyoming law recognizes parental rights as fundamental, there is currently no meaningful enforcement mechanism when those rights are infringed upon.
Silence in the Chamber
When Senate President Bo Biteman asked if there was debate, the chamber fell into what observers described as a deafening silence. There were more than enough “seconds” to support the motion. Yet not a single senator rose to debate against it. There were no speeches, no procedural arguments, and not a single explanation.
The vote was taken, and the motion failed 12–19, again falling short of the two-thirds vote required to suspend the rules. With that vote, HB0157 died without ever being debated on the Senate floor.
The Time Argument
Throughout the debate, the most common explanation offered was simple:
There just wasn’t enough time. But numbers tell a different story. As of that morning, the Wyoming House of Representatives had logged approximately 131 hours of floor time. The Wyoming Senate had logged roughly 83 hours. That is a difference of nearly 48 hours.
The Senate adjourned with ten bills still sitting on General File; the House continued working for nearly two additional hours and ultimately completed consideration of all of its remaining bills. The Senate did not.
Observers also noted that on the day in question the Senate did not convene until 11:00 a.m., took a 30-minute break, followed by a break that was intended to last 30 minutes but lasted over 2 hours. This is not normal; it is not standard practice, and it is definitely not traditional.
A Question That Changed the Conversation
Immediately after the failed attempt to revive HB0157, Senator Barlow rose with a question that cut directly to the heart of the issue. So the public could understand whether the work requested in those motions was possible, he asked how many legislative days remained available under the Constitution.
Senate President Bo Biteman responded: “We are on the 19th day. We had 21 available. We have two extra available because we cut and ran early last year. So we have 23 days total. We would’ve had time . . . technically.”
In other words, TIME was still available.
And Then the Motion to Go Home
Moments later, the chamber moved on. Senator Bo Biteman said, “Should we go home?”
Senate Majority Floor Leader Tara Nethercott rose and made a motion:
“Mr. President, I move that we stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. Thursday, March 5.”
It wasn’t yet 5:00 p.m., but the motion carried. The Senate adjourned and the clock ticked on.
The Real Question
Legislatures are often judged by the laws they pass. But sometimes the more revealing story lies in the legislation that never receives debate at all: bills, not for the government, but for the people; bills to fix things citizens are concerned with that often don’t align with lobby groups and associations.
On March 3rd, two bills, one addressing sexually explicit materials accessible to minors, the other establishing legal protections for parental rights, never made it to the floor for full debate. Not because they were voted down, but because they were never allowed to reach that stage.
Which leaves a question many citizens may now be asking, if the clock wasn’t actually running out…why did the work stop?