SR 6 (1996): requesting an opinion of the justices concerning the constitutionality of HB 1549 and withdrawing a previous request for an opinion of the justices.

Cite this page

Granite Record indexes the General Court’s record; it is not that record. Where a citation allows only one source, cite the General Court — every page here links to what it is drawn from. The date below is the day the page was read.

MLA
“SR 6 (1996): requesting an opinion of the justices concerning the constitutionality of HB 1549 and withdrawing a previous request for an opinion of the justices.” Granite Record, https://graniterecord.org/bill/1996/sr6. Accessed 24 Oct. 2026.
APA
Granite Record. (n.d.). SR 6 (1996): requesting an opinion of the justices concerning the constitutionality of HB 1549 and withdrawing a previous request for an opinion of the justices. Retrieved 24 Oct. 2026, from https://graniterecord.org/bill/1996/sr6
Chicago
Granite Record. “SR 6 (1996): requesting an opinion of the justices concerning the constitutionality of HB 1549 and withdrawing a previous request for an opinion of the justices.” Accessed 24 Oct. 2026. https://graniterecord.org/bill/1996/sr6.
BibTeX
@misc{bill-1996-sr6, title = {SR 6 (1996): requesting an opinion of the justices concerning the constitutionality of HB 1549 and withdrawing a previous request for an opinion of the justices.}, howpublished = {Granite Record}, url = {https://graniterecord.org/bill/1996/sr6}, note = {Accessed 24 Oct. 2026} }

SR 6 (1996)

requesting an opinion of the justices concerning the constitutionality of HB 1549 and withdrawing a previous request for an opinion of the justices.

  • Status: Adopted by the Senate
  • Term: 1995-1996
  • Subject: Miscellaneous

The Story

On May 29, 1996 the Senate voted to adopt it on a voice vote.

Sponsors

  • Sen. Eleanor Podles (prime sponsor)

Votes

  • May 29, 1996, Senate: Adopt — voice vote, passed

The Docket

  • May 29, 1996: INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED VV; SJ25,P549-550
  • May 29, 1996: (SEE HB 1549 ALSO)
  • January 30, 1997: OPINION PRINTED; SC10,P9-17

From the General Court