Democrats in the Senate on Thursday stretched debate on a bill to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” using floor speeches to argue the legislature is prioritizing symbolic measures over issues affecting everyday life.
House Bill 2, sponsored by Representative David Standridge, R-Hayden, was prefiled last summer and has already passed the House of Representatives.
Senator Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove, delivered a speech criticizing the bill and the broader legislative agenda. She described arriving at the State House expecting to see legislation addressing economic pressures, only to find the renaming proposal at the top of the calendar.
Coleman said constituents regularly ask why certain proposals, particularly those tied to the cost of living, fail to pass. She emphasized that lawmakers in the minority still field those questions, despite having limited power to move legislation in a chamber dominated by Republicans.
“We represent constituents, too. They rely on us for quality-of-life issues,” said Coleman.
She repeatedly contrasted those concerns with HB2, questioning why it was prioritized over policies she argued could have a tangible financial impact. A central example was public transportation funding, an issue she said has been debated since her early years in the legislature.
Coleman described constituents who ask every year whether transit funding will finally pass, noting that expanded transportation options could help people get to jobs and doctors’ appointments while reducing household costs. She also pointed to shifting dynamics in rural areas, where hospital closures have made access to care more difficult and increased the need for reliable transportation.
Despite that need, Coleman said, related legislation continues to end up “dead, dead, dead.”
She also revisited a proposal she introduced that would have allowed voters to decide whether lawmakers should pursue a lottery and other forms of gaming. Framing it as a simple “yes or no” question for voters, Coleman said the bill was designed to gauge public support for generating new revenue. It never received a committee hearing.
By contrast, she noted, the Gulf renaming bill advanced to the Senate floor.
“It doesn’t bring a dime to our coffers,” said Coleman.
Other Democrats echoed those concerns. Senator Vivian Figures, D-Mobile, questioned both the purpose and practicality of the name change, pressing Senator Chris Elliott, R-Josephine, who carried the bill in the Senate, on why it was necessary. In a back-and-forth on the floor, Figures drew attention to a lack of substantive reasoning behind the proposal.
“Today, we’re here to discuss an issue that may, at first glance, seem simple… A matter of naming. But as we look closer, we begin to understand that names carry weight. They carry history, identity, and shared understanding,” said Figures.
Figures also pointed to centuries of history and international recognition, warning that changing it at the state level would not be broadly adopted and could create confusion.
“Let us begin with the fundamental truth. Names of major geographic features are not arbitrary. They are not casually assigned or easily replaced,” said Figures.
Senator Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham, whose remarks blended frustration and broader concerns about history and governance.
Coleman-Madison questioned both the bill’s purpose and the reasoning behind elevating it on the Senate’s special order calendar.
“Renaming the Gulf of Mexico… is not at the top of the list of any citizens,” said Coleman-Madison.
The extended debate ultimately delayed a vote on the bill. Republicans, who hold a supermajority, are expected to bring the measure back, but Democrats made clear they intend to continue using floor time to filibuster the legislation.
