We support this open rule for H.R. 1170, the bill mandating that three-judge panels review constitutional challenges of State referenda. With respect to the bill itself, we are somewhat mystified at the manner in which it has moved through committee and on to the House floor. According to the dissenting views in the committee report, the Committee on the Judiciary rushed through the hearing and markup of H.R. 1170 before the Judicial Conference of the United States had an opportunity to consider the bill and provide the committee with the benefit of its views. The conference's official views would have been especially important to the Committee on the Judiciary in this case since the conference has consistently, since 1970, opposed three-judge courts except for certain reapportionment cases. The 12 members signing the dissenting views noted that, and I quote them: not for the first time this year, the Judiciary Committee majority has ridden roughshod over the Federal judiciary, taking action on measures with a significant impact on the workload of the Federal judiciary without waiting the short period of time it would take to permit the Judicial Conference to consider those measures and give the committee the benefit of its views.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns over the process of H.R. 1170 regarding three-judge panels for state referenda challenges.
Share
More from Anthony Beilenson
Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose House Resolution 529, the rule for the conference report on H.R. 3259, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, which the gentleman from Florida explained so well. We do, however, have concerns…
Mr. Speaker, the dolphin protection bill has created a great deal of controversy within the environmental community which was, after all, responsible for calling our attention to the serious problem of the slaughter of dolphins by the tuna…
yes, obviously many of the comments made by my friends and colleagues who seem to be supportive of the idea but cannot bring themselves to vote for it, most of what they have said is quite true. It does cut other programs, it does cut…
Although we have no objections to the rule itself, many of us believe that the legislation that it makes in order, H.R. 1675, would cause serious harm to our Nation's wildlife refuges, which provide vital habitat for hundreds of species of…





