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:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 should be considered before the division of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38.
[Note:] When division of a proposition is the question before the house, further amendments to the proposition should probably not even be received untilall parts of the division have been considered and the surviving content of the proposition is known [see A.Rule 66 (1) (j) and (2)].
Apparently, approval of one of the divisions has been treated as adoption of that part of the amendment so that, if all divisions are approved, it could be argued that the amendment was adopted - making amendments to the amendment (or the surviving part of the amendment) untimely.
A better approach is to treat approval of the divisions and adoption of the amendment (or of the amendment "as shown by division 1") as 2 separate steps. That way, after approval of the divisions, amendments to the amendment (or the surviving part of the amendment) are in order if they are not in the 3rd degree.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Welch asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be laid on the table. Granted.
Representative Wood moved that Part 1 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Part 1 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be laid on the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-55; noes-42.] Motion carried.
Representative Wood moved that Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be laid on the table.
16 The question was: Shall Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be laid on the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52; noes-45.] Motion carried.
Representative Loftus moved that Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be taken from the table and taken up at this time. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Shall Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be taken from the table and taken up at this time? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-94; noes-3.] Motion carried.
Assembly amendment 1 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 offered by Representative Welch.
[Note:] Dividing A.Amdt-4, while proper, was unnecessary. A.Amdt-4 to A.Sub.Amdt-3 to AB 38 was only an amendment in the 1st degree [see A.Rule 52 (2) (a)] and "an amendment to a simple amendment to a substitute amendment is in order". Thus, what was Div-1 could have been an amendment to A.Amdt-4 to delete "or incest", and what was Div-2 an amendment to delete "rape or".
Nobody raised a point of order that amendments 1, 2 and 3 to "Part 2 of A.Amdt-4" were "improperly drafted" because the rules do not authorize amendinga division. The acquiescence was treated as "unanimous consent". The amendments were debated; amendment 3 was adopted; and it was left to the skill of the drafting department to sort it all out on the next day.
Representative Loftus moved rejection of assembly amendment 1 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38. The assembly stood informal.
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be placed after assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38. Granted. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of January 30, 1990 .......... Page: 637
Representative Welch asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 1 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be placed after assembly amendment 2 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38. Granted.
Assembly amendment 2 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 offered by Representative Wimmer.
Representative Wimmer asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 2 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be placed after assembly amendment 3 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38. Granted.
Assembly amendment 3 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 offered by Representatives Panzer and Rosenzweig.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 3 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be adopted? Motion carried.
17 Representative Welch asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 1 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be laid on the table. Granted.
Representative Welch asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 2 to Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be laid on the table. Granted.
The question was: Shall Part 2 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be adopted? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-96; noes-0.] Motion carried.
Representative Loftus moved that Part 1 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be taken from the table and taken up at this time.
The question was: Shall Part 1 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 be taken from the table and taken up at this time? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-42; noes-54.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 3, 1988 .......... Page: 782
Amendment not properly drafted:
Assembly amendment 6 to assembly substitute amendment 4 to Senate Bill 235 [relating to providing family leave and medical leave to employes in this state and providing a penalty] offered by Representatives Margaret Lewis, Rosenzweig and Panzer.
Representative Bell moved rejection of assembly amendment 6 to assembly substitute amendment 4 to Senate Bill 235.
[Note:] The amendment had been drafted to fit an unintroduced substitute amendment draft (LRBs0597/2).
A.SubAmdt.4 (LRBs0689/1), to which the amendment was erroneously offered, already contained the change proposed by the amendment.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the amendment out of order because it was not properly drafted.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 28, 1985 .......... Page: 200
[Point of order:]
Senator Lee raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 [to Assembly Joint Resolution 3, relating to removing obsolete provisions of the state constitution regarding elections and suffrage so as to revise the article on suffrage without impeding any voting rights granted under the constitution or laws of this state (2nd consideration) was not germane.
18 [Note:] S.Amdt.2 proposed to ingraft a Wisconsin equal rights amendment.
The amendment was a floor amendment. It could also have been ruled "not in proper form" because the reversion of a constitutional amendment from 2nd consideration to first consideration requires a substitute amendment; see J.Rule 55 (2)(b).
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 1127
