Adverse disposition: defeated proposal not to start again in same house
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 6, 1986 .......... Page: 825
Point of order:
Representative Schmidt rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 628 [relating to survivorship and guardianship rights to motor fuel dealerships] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 83 (3) and Assembly Rule 49 (2) because it was identical to Assembly Bill 511.
[Note:] Because AB 511 had not been listed in the save resolution (85 ARes-12) of proposals to be considered in 1986, the bill was properly deemed adversely disposed of and recorded as "failed to pass" pursuant to Jt.Rule 83 (3). Once a proposal has been adversely disposed of, a substantially similar proposal originating in the same house cannot be considered; see A.Rule 49 (2).
1985 ARes-18 (below) was designed to add AB 511 to the save list and thus remove the A.Rule 49 (2) objection to the consideration of AB 628. As a resolution relating to a procedure of the assembly, ARes-18 was privileged under A.Rule 43 (1) to be introduced under any order of business and to be "taken up immediately before all other proposals then pending, unless referred"....
Representative Loftus introduced a privileged resolution.
Assembly Resolution 18, relating to floorperiod V consideration of proposals pending in the assembly. By Representative Loftus.
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 18 was not privileged.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 18 be adopted? Motion carried.
The chair ruled the point of order, raised by Representative Schmidt, not well taken because of the adoption of Assembly Resolution 18.
11 1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2367
Point of order:
Representative Dorff rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 937 [relating to the prohibition of the sale, distribution or use of 2, 4, 5-T and silvex and providing penalties] was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 50 (2) because it was substantially similar to Assembly Bill 245 which had previously been before the assembly.
[Note:] 1979 AB 245 had been debated on May 8, 1979, and was returned to the committee on agriculture. That committee held a new public hearing on March 24, 1980.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because Assembly Bill 245 had not been adversely disposed of.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1978 .......... Page: 3639
Point of order:
Representative Soucie rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 1235 [relating to declaring certain farm drainage ditches to be nonnavigable waters] was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 71 (l) (h) and (2) because it was substantially similar to Assembly Bill 186 which had beenadversely disposed of when the assembly sustained the governor's veto. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1978 .......... Page: 3671
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Bill 1235 was not substantially similar to Assembly Bill 186 because it was much more limited in scope. The point of order raised by Representative Soucie was ruled not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 10, 1976 .......... Page: 1961
[Point of order:]
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 1016 was not properly before the senate.
[Note:] The assembly passed 1975 Assembly Bill 1016, "relating to various changes in the workmen's compensation law and making appropriations", on September 26, 1975. In the special session of December 1975, both houses passed Senate Bill 2, Special Session, which became Chapter 147, Laws of 1975. That bill was identical to 1975 AB 1016.
Following the point of order, the senate concurred in 1975 AB 1016 with amendments. Returned to the assembly, the amended bill was referred to committee and died without further action.
12 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that pursuant to senate rule 33 (2) the point of order was not well taken.
Adverse disposition: repetition of motion on same day not permitted
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1050
[Rejection motion, repetition at same stage and day not permitted:]
Representative Potter moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-48, noes-49.] Motion failed. [Intervening business omitted.]
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1051
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281. ( Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for rejection was not in order under Assembly Rule 72.
[Note:] Although A.Rule 72 does not enumerate all of the "adverse disposition" methods shown in A.Rule 49 (1), the purpose of A.Rule 72 appears to include prevention of dilatory "same stage and date" repetition of all such methods [see A.Rule 69 (1)].
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 13, 1981 .......... Page: 1215
[Background: motion to reject 1981 AJR 70, "memorializing Congress and the President to seek the dismissal of the Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt", failed (p. 1212); A.Amdt.13 adopted (p. 1213); call of the assembly (p. 1214); call lifted.]
Representative Shabaz moved rejection of Assembly Joint Resolution 70.
[Note:] Adoption of a substantive amendment usually constitutes the "significant business" required to permit repetition of a motion.
When no significant business has intervened, 2 consecutive identical motions may be ruled "dilatory"; i.e., used for the purpose of delay.
As affected by the adoption of A.Amdt.12, the joint resolution already required the chief clerk to append to the transmittal "a list of those who voted in favor" of the resolution. A.Amdt.13 merely added the words: "and of those who opposed".
13 Speaker Jackamonis ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 69.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 9, 1979 .......... Page: 1251
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for rejection of assembly amendment 9 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 293 was not in order because the motion had previously been voted on.
[Note:] Following a motion to reject, which failed 47 to 51 earlier on the same day, the A.Amdt.9 had been tabled; A.Jour. p. 1235.
A.Rule 72 prohibits repetition of the motion to "postpone indefinitely" on the same day at the same stage. Under another rule [1979 A.Rule 50 (1) (a) to (c)], "adverse and final disposition" includes indefinite postponement, rejection, and nonconcurrence.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 3, 1975 .......... Page: 778
[Background:]
Assembly Bill 222, relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1975 legislature, and making appropriations:
1. Rejection of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-14, noes 18; p. 776)
2. Tabling of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-16, noes-16; p. 777).
3. Motion for rejection of senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1.
4. Tabling of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-15, noes-17).
5. Senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 rejected (ayes-19, noes-13; p. 778).
[Point of order:]
Senator Whittow moved rejection of senate amendment 1.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 66 the motion to reject a second time in the same day was out of order.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Whittow moved that senate amendment 1 be laid on the table.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that there was no intervening business and therefore a motion to table again was out of order.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken as a vote on rejection was considered intervening business.
14Amendments: not in proper form
1 9 9 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 25, 1992 .......... Page: 795
[Point of order:]
Senator Van Sistine raised the point of order that Senate amendment 13 to Senate substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 308 [relating to the alcohol concentration of vehicle operators] is not germane.
[Note:] 1991 Senate Bill 308 proposed to establish 2 levels of "prohibited alcohol concentration" for motor vehicle operators: for a first or 2nd offense, retain the existing .10% level, but for any 3rd or subsequent offense, anything over .08% would be evidence of drunkenness.
S.Amdt-13 was a floor amendment that tried to change the threshold after the first offense during a 10-year period, but that managed to wipe out the .10% threshold for a first offense and appeared to require a person to maintain a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or more "for a period of 10 years after the first offense" to demonstrate a prohibited alcohol concentration.
Even if S.Amdt-13 had been properly drafted, its adoption would have been a nongermane expansion of the scope of the proposal because the number of persons who may commit a 2nd drunk driving offense is greater than the number of persons who may commit a 3rd or subsequent drunk driving offense.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 30, 1990 .......... Page: 635
Representative Grobschmidt moved rejection of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 [relating to requiring parental consent for an unemancipated child's abortion, informed consent of a woman to her own abortion, remedies in civil actions and providing a penalty].
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent for the following division of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38. Granted.
Part 1: the entire amendment except for the words "or incest" on line 8.
Part 2: the entire amendment except for the words "rape or" on line 8.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the division of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 was not proper under Assembly Rule 80.
15 [Note:] Although the requested division of A.Amdt-4 was unusual, it was not improper. Every one understood that, by adopting Div-1, that affected phrase would end "pregnancy is the result of rape" or, by adopting Div-2, "pregnancy is the result of incest". If both divisions passed, the phrase would read as shown in the printed amendment: "pregnancy is the result of rape or incest".
A.Rule 80 (1) provides that the request for division of an amendment shall be granted "if each separate proposition or action to be voted on is complete and proper regardless of the action taken on any other portion of the original question".
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Loftus moved rejection of Part 1 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38.
Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 offered by Representatives Grobschmidt and Welch. [Intervening text omitted.]
Point of order:
