Bill Watch: SB 101

April 24th, 2026

On Thursday, the House voted against a motion to pass SB 101, currently the primary open enrollment bill. 

What happened

First, the House took up two amendments. One, from Reps. Noble and Peternel, was very similar to the amendment introduced by Sen. Lang in the House Education Policy & Administration Committee hearing, but with a few minor changes. Beyond the changes made in Sen. Lang’s amendment, the version from Reps. Noble and Peternel:

  • Changed the term “sending district” to “resident district”

  • Added language barring districts from rejecting students based on a history of disciplinary issues or absenteeism if those patterns were related to a disability, a result of bullying, or related to housing instability

  • Clarified that transportation was the responsibility of the family unless otherwise determined by an Individualized Education Program (IEP)

  • Directed the state board to convene a working committee to study and make recommendations on implementation

This amendment was adopted by a vote of 182-172. 

The House then considered an amendment from Rep. Damon, which would have created a study commission on open enrollment in place of making immediate policy change. This amendment failed to pass by a vote of 169-184. 

The House then took a vote on the bill as amended by Reps. Noble and Peternel. The motion of ought to pass as amended failed by a vote of 168-184. 

A motion was then made to lay the bill on the table, which gives members of the House an opportunity to revisit it at another time. (Although the bill failed to pass, it also was not killed, as no motion was made to vote the bill inexpedient to legislate.) The motion to table passed 320-32. 

What happens next

SB 101 could be taken off the table, but it would require a vote to do so. Most likely, SB 101 will remain on the table, which means it will be functionally dead at the end of the session. 

There is, however, still a possible path forward for open enrollment. HB 751, the bill that was amended to be an open enrollment bill in the Senate, is still in a committee of conference. The current version of the bill mirrors the version of SB 101 that was sent to the House, though it’s expected that what comes out of committee of conference would look more similar to the amended version of SB 101. It may be hard for members of the committee to get there, however, given limitations in the scope of a committee of conference. If the committee of conference can agree on a version of HB 751, that version would go to the House and Senate for a vote. Given what happened this week, however, it seems like lawmakers have more work to do to create a version both chambers are willing to pass.

There is also always the possibility that lawmakers could add open enrollment legislation as a non-germane amendment to another bill, similar to how we got HB 751. But there are rules limitations they would need to navigate and there are still risks to that approach.

What this means

Legislators’ reasons for opposing open enrollment vary. Some are concerned that it will divert resources away from the schools that need it most, and that it leaves out students with disabilities, implicitly if not explicitly. Others worry that their towns will end up bearing the financial burden of educating students from other towns. And some simply worry that the potential price tag is too high, particularly for a bill moving forward in a non-budget year. Addressing all of these concerns enough to move votes could be a challenge.

If HB 751 sees the same fate as SB 101, open enrollment will remain in place under the current law. That means that the warrant articles towns voted on this spring become critically important, as they govern which schools participate in open enrollment and which don’t.