Administrative rules; adopting environmental protection criteria stricter than federal requirements prohibited
What it does: This act prohibits a state agency from adopting or amending a rule that establishes numeric limitations or criteria for certain substances relating to environmental protection that: (1) is more stringent or extensive than federal requirements on the same topic; and (2) if there are no federal requirements on the same topic, is not based on the best available science and weight of scientific research for each substance to which the rule applies. (official summary)
Question before the chamber: Coleman-Madison motion to Adopt
The tally
Yes 7 · No 25 · Not voting 3
Bar: green = yes, brown = no, striped = not voting.
| Party | Yes | No | Not voting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats | 7 | 0 | 1 |
| Republicans | 0 | 25 | 2 |
Most Democrats voted yes; most Republicans voted no.
The full roll (35)
Yes 7
No 25
- Andrew JonesR10
- April WeaverR14
- Arthur OrrR3
- Chris ElliottR32
- Clyde ChamblissR30
- Dan RobertsR15
- David SessionsR35
- Donnie ChesteenR29
- Garlan GudgerR4
- Gerald AllenR21
- Greg AlbrittonR22
- Jabo WaggonerR16
- Jack WilliamsR34
- Jay HoveyR27
- Josh CarnleyR31
- Keith KelleyR12
- Larry StuttsR6
- Matt WoodsR5
- Randy PriceR13
- Sam GivhanR7
- Steve LivingstonR8
- Tim MelsonR1
- Tom ButlerR2
- Wes KitchensR9
- Will BarfootR25
Not voting 3
- Billy BeasleyD28
- Lance BellR11
- Shay ShelnuttR17
“Not voting” is a recorded non-vote, not a reason for the absence. Parties come from public rosters; how we count.