CACR 22 (2012): Relating to the chief justice of the supreme court. Providing that the chief justice shall adopt court rules with the concurrence of the general court.

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
“CACR 22 (2012): Relating to the chief justice of the supreme court. Providing that the chief justice shall adopt court rules with the concurrence of the general court.” Granite Record, https://graniterecord.org/bill/2012/cacr22. Accessed 24 Oct. 2026.
APA
Granite Record. (n.d.). CACR 22 (2012): Relating to the chief justice of the supreme court. Providing that the chief justice shall adopt court rules with the concurrence of the general court. Retrieved 24 Oct. 2026, from https://graniterecord.org/bill/2012/cacr22
Chicago
Granite Record. “CACR 22 (2012): Relating to the chief justice of the supreme court. Providing that the chief justice shall adopt court rules with the concurrence of the general court.” Accessed 24 Oct. 2026. https://graniterecord.org/bill/2012/cacr22.
BibTeX
@misc{bill-2012-cacr22, title = {CACR 22 (2012): Relating to the chief justice of the supreme court. Providing that the chief justice shall adopt court rules with the concurrence of the general court.}, howpublished = {Granite Record}, url = {https://graniterecord.org/bill/2012/cacr22}, note = {Accessed 24 Oct. 2026} }

CACR 22 (2012)

Relating to the chief justice of the supreme court. Providing that the chief justice shall adopt court rules with the concurrence of the general court.

  • Status: Killed
  • Term: 2011-2012
  • House committee: Judiciary
  • Subject: Constitutional Amendments

The Story

It was introduced on January 4, 2012 and referred to the House Judiciary committee. The committee held a public hearing on January 17, 2012. The committee met in executive session on February 14, 2012 to vote on its recommendation. The majority recommended that the House pass it, and the minority recommended that the House kill it, by a vote of 12–4. The report was placed on the regular calendar. On March 14, 2012 the House rejected a motion to pass it on a division vote 203–107. On March 14, 2012 the House failed “Lay On The Table (Rep Itse)” on a division vote 211–105. On March 14, 2012 the House adopted “Special Order to Mar 21 (Rep Itse)” on a division vote 207–111. On March 21, 2012 the House voted to kill it on a voice vote.

Sponsors

Hearings and Sessions

  • January 17, 2012, 11:30 AM: public hearing, House Judiciary, LOB 208
  • February 14, 2012, 10:00 AM: executive session, House Judiciary, LOB 208

Votes

  • March 14, 2012, House: Ought to Pass — yeas 203, nays 107, failed
  • March 14, 2012, House: Lay On The Table (Rep Itse) — yeas 211, nays 105, failed
  • March 14, 2012, House: Special Order to Mar 21 (Rep Itse) — yeas 207, nays 111, passed
  • March 21, 2012, House: Inexpedient to Legislate — voice vote, passed

The Docket

  • January 4, 2012: Introduced 1/4/2012 and Referred to Judiciary
  • January 17, 2012: Public Hearing: 1/17/2012 11:30 AM LOB 208
  • February 14, 2012: Executive Session: 2/14/2012 10:00 AM LOB 208
  • February 22, 2012: Majority Committee Report: Ought to Pass for Mar 7 (Vote 12-4; RC)
  • February 22, 2012: Minority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
  • March 14, 2012: Ought to Pass: MF DIV 203-107 Lacking Necessary Three-Fifths Vote
  • March 14, 2012: Inexpedient to Legislate (Rep Weber)
  • March 14, 2012: Lay On The Table (Rep Itse): MF DIV 211-105 Lacking Necessary Three-Fifths Vote
  • March 14, 2012: Special Order to Mar 21 (Rep Itse): MA DIV 207-111
  • March 21, 2012: Inexpedient to Legislate: MA VV

Laws It Would Change

From the General Court