78Senate Journal of March 30, 1978 .......... Page: 2235
On Tuesday, March 28, 1978, Senator Theno moved to withdraw Senate Joint Resolution 8 from the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. Senator Berger raised the point of order that the committee had not yet submitted a written report as required by s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin statutes.
On January 20, 1977 the chair ruled that s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin statutes did not require that Senate Joint Resolution 8 be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. Implicit in that ruling is the absence of a requirement that a written report be submitted on the resolution.
Therefore the point of order raised by Senator Berger is not well taken. The motion made by Senator Theno is proper and the question is shall Senate Joint Resolution 8 be withdrawn from the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 18, 1975 .......... Page: 920
[Background:Senator Bablitch moved that Senate Joint Resolution 36, "relating to property tax exemption for the homestead property of residents aged 65 or older (first consideration)", be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions].
[Point of order:]
Senator Berger raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 36 must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to 13.52 of the state statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 24, 1975 .......... Page: 954
On Wednesday, June 18, 1975, Senator Berger raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 36 must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to 13.52 of the state statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
A similar point of order was raised in 1973 on whether or not a proposed constitutional amendment relating to taxation of agricultural land should be required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. At that time, the presiding officer ruled, on page 427 of the Journal of 1973, that the resolution need not be so referred. It is the opinion of this chair that this earlier ruling was based on sound reasoning and this chair reiterates the reasoning of the then presiding officer as it is applicable to the present question before this house.
Wisconsin Statute 13.52 creates the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions and describes its power and duties and in specific requires a report to be submitted in writing by the committee of the committee's opinion of the legality of the proposal, the fiscal effect upon the state and its subdivisions and its desirability as a matter of public policy.
Section 13.52 (5) sets forth the powers and duties of the committee. "It is the purpose of this committee to provide the legislature with a considered opinion of the legality of the proposal, of the fiscal effect upon the state and its subdivisions and of the desirability as a matter of public policy of each legislative proposal which would modify existing laws or create new laws relating to the exemption of property or persons from any state or local taxes or special assessments."
79 The powers and duties section, 13.52 (5), and the report section, 13.52 (6), mention in specific: (5) "each legislative proposal which would modify existing laws or create new
laws" and (6) "proposal which affects any existing statute or creates any new statute". Senate Joint Resolution 36 does not "affect any existing statute or create any new statute", nor does it "modify existing laws or create new laws". Senate Joint Resolution 36 is a constitutional amendment which, if passed, would give the legislature the ability to create or modify existing laws. Because this resolution does not directly affect state statutes, it is the opinion of the chair that no report from the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions is needed in order for Senate Joint Resolution 36 to be properly before the senate.
The point of order is not well taken.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 27, 1974 .......... Page: 2309
[Point of order:]
Assembly Joint Resolution 1 [relating to taxation of agricultural land and undeveloped land (2nd consideration)]. Read a third time.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that because the resolution had a date of April 1973, therefore it would be null and void.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken as assembly amendment 5 corrected the situation.
Senate Journal of October 11, 1973 .......... Page: 1720
[Effect of substantive change on 2nd consideration:]
Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 1 [relating to taxation of agricultural land and undeveloped land (2nd consideration)] offered by Senators Risser, LaFave, Parys, Whittow and Schuele.
Senator J. D. Swan moved rejection.
[Point of order:]
Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that senate amendments of substance were not in order at this stage of the bill. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
80 [Note:] Section 1 of Article XII of the Wisconsin Constitution requires 2 successive legislatures to agree to to the text of a constitutional amendment, without change, before the amendment can be submitted to the voters for ratification.
In 1975, each house adopted a rule [S.Rule 74 (6); A.Rule 53 (4)] requiring the use of substitute amendments for any change by the 2nd legislature in the proposed text of a constitutional amendment. This was done to assure that the proposal, reverted to "first consideration", will carry to proper title notation and the ministerial instructions: refer to next legislature; publish for 3 months preceding the general election. In the 1977 joint rule revision, the rule became J.Rule 55 (2):
The text of a proposed constitutional amendment is not subject to change when a joint resolution submits such text for "2nd consideration" after the proposal was adopted on "first consideration" by the last preceding legislature, unless appropriate changes are made to revert the status of the constitutional amendment to "first consideration".
(a) While the constitutional amendment has "2nd consideration" status, only the relating clause and those paragraphs of the joint resolution pertaining to the ballot question and to the date of submission to the voters may be changed by amendment.
(b) Because any change in the text of a proposed constitutional amendment before the senate or assembly for "2nd consideration" reverts that proposed amendment to "first consideration" status, any such change shall be presented to the senate or assembly in the form of a substitute amendment which, in its title, its resolving clauses, and its instructions for transmittal to the next succeeding legislature, properly sets forth the resultant "first consideration" status of the proposed constitution text.
Senate Journal of October 11, 1973 .......... Page: 1725
As it relates to Assembly Joint Resolution 1 the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that an amendment would nullify the two years previous action, but that an amendment was certainly in order.
Constitutionality of proposal (chair cannot rule on)
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1991 .......... Page: 574
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that to override item veto C-30 of Assembly Bill 91 would violate s. 20.003 (4) [required general fund balance] of the Wisconsin Statutes. He cited as precedents the point of order on 1985 Assembly Bill 447 raised on January 28, 1986.
81 [Note:] The 1986 precedent concerned a proposed new expenditure at a time when the state's revenue projections indicated that the general fund balance was likely to dip below the minimum.
Section 10 (2) (b) of article V of the constitution directs the legislature to reconsider partial vetoes of appropriation bills and, having decided to attempt the override of a specific partial veto, a statutory rule cannot prevent the legislature from acting under the constitution.
Until the legislature adjourns sine die without providing the balanced budget required by section 5 of article VIII [annual tax levy to equal expenses], it cannot be said that an anticipated negative budget balance resulting from a veto override violates the state constitution. Even if the legislature so adjourns, the conflict between the 2 provisions of the constitution will have to be decided in the courts.
The presiding officer cannot determine the constitutionality of a proposition.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1990 .......... Page: 858
Point of order:
Representative Bock rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 699 [relating to pupils' right to freedom of expression in public schools] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] A.Amdt-1 to A.Sub-2 was a floor amendment which added, to the bill's proposed pupil right of free expression in public school publications: "The right of expression includes religious expression".
The presiding officer is limited to ruling on germaneness. Whether or not a proposition is unconstitutional is ultimately a question for the courts. In this case, after the amendment was ruled germane the assembly refused 29 to
64 to table the amendment, adopted the amendment and adopted the substitute on voice votes, advanced to 3rd reading by unanimous consent, and passed the bill to the senate 87 to 10 where it died in committee without further action.
Ruling of the chair:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Bock that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 699 was not germane.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 8, 1981 .......... Page: 667
[Background: Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1981 legislature, and making appropriations, be returned to the Assembly.]
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66 be returned to the Assembly? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-22.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
Point of order:
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that both the majority and minority parties agreed Assembly Bill 66 was unconstitutionally before the senate.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the record will show that the majority party does not concede that Assembly Bill 66 is unconstitutionally before the senate.
82 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 27, 1979 .......... Page: 215
Point of order:
Representative Lallensack rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 46 [relating to increasing the ceiling on the public debt for veterans' mortgage loans and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 because the constitutional amendment providing for public debt for veterans' housing which was approved by the people in April 1975 (Wis. Constitution Article VIII, Sections 3 and 7) provided for general obligation bonding and not revenue bonding as contained in the substitute amendment.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because amendments to bills are not required to be germane to the constitution. He also ruled: 1) the substitution of revenue bonding for general obligation bonding was a matter of particularized details and not one individual proposition amending another, 2) the substitute was intended to accomplish the same purpose in a different manner, and 3) the scope of the proposal was not expanded by changing the amount of the appropriation.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 16, 1978 .......... Page: 2002
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 400 is required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 27, 1978 .......... Page: 2114
On Thursday, March 16, Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 400 created a tax exemption and was therefore required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to s. 13.52 (6) of the statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Section 13.52 (6) provides that "any proposal which .... creates any new statute relating to the exemption of any property or person from any state or local taxes or special assessments .... shall at once be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions ...." Senate Bill 400 provides, in part, that counties may provide law enforcement services to localities within the county and may charge the localities for services provided.
The bill provides that for cities and villages "such expenses shall be certified, returned and paid as are other county charges."
The bill further provides that for unincorporated areas "the county board may levy a tax upon all real and personal property in any unincorporated area .... to reimburse the county for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such services"....
83 Senator Sensenbrenner contends that because Senate Bill 400 authorizes counties to levy a direct tax on unincorporated areas but does not authorize such a tax on incorporated areas that a tax exemption has thereby been created.
It is the chair's opinion that before there can be an exemption there must first be taxation. Senate Bill 400 does not exempt incorporated areas from a county tax. Rather, it is silent on the matter with the result that incorporated areas are not subject to such a tax in the first place.
Legislation which creates a tax and applies it to a certain class of people or property cannot properly be said to have simultaneously created an exemption for all other people or property not taxed.
Therefore, Senate Bill 400 does not create a tax exemption in the sense contemplated by s. 13.52 (6) and the point of order raised by Sensenbrenner is not well taken.
Prior to raising a point of order Senator Sensenbrenner questioned whether Senate Bill 400 would meet the constitutional requirement that "The rule of taxation shall be uniform ...." It is not within the jurisdiction of the chair to rule on questions of constitutionality. Therefore the chair remains silent on the matter.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Cosponsors on bills, joint resolutions, citations
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 9, 1973 .......... Page: 1660
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 601 [relating to emergency medical services programs and licensing of emergency medical technicians-advanced (paramedics), creating an examining council, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] Read a third time. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-29, noes-0.] So the bill passed.
By request of Senators Lorge, Murphy, Schuele, Dorman, Keppler, LaFave, and Risser they were added as coauthors of Senate Bill 601.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that to add the members as coauthors of Senate Bill 601 after the bill passed was not timely.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Debate: conduct during
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 25, 1989 .......... Page: 189
[Point of order:]
84 Senator Lee raised the point of order that if a Senator leaves his desk or sits down he is yielding the floor.
[Note:] To address the senate, a member must rise at the place assigned to the member, remain standing and be recognized by the presiding officer (S.Rule 56). Members may only speak from their assigned places (S.Rule 59).
Mason's Manual, Sec. 93, states: "While speaking, members should remain standing at their seats ... and when finished, should sit down. A member who is infirm or ill may be permitted to speak while seated."
