The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling found.]
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:
105 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.
[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 until all 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.
106 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 amending a 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.
107 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 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 283
[Division of question: under unanimous consent, division of senate amendment to assembly amendment to senate bill was allowed notwithstanding A.Rules 52 and 80]
[Note:] The prohibition against amendments in the 3rd degree applies only to the amending process within the Assembly, and "simple amendment" means an Assembly amendment:
A.Rule 52 (2) (intro.): "Amendments to amendments may be offered but amendments in the 3rd degree shall not be accepted."
A.Rule 80 (2): "If it is the opinion of the chair that the proposed division of a simple amendment is unduly complex or the purpose of the division can be more clearly or simply accomplished by amendment, or that a call for a division is being used as a substitute for a series of amendments, the question shall not be divided."
Because senate amendments to assembly proposals or amendments are to be treated like proposals for the purpose of further amending, division is inappropriate:
A.Rule 52 (2) (b): "Solely for the purpose of amending, senate amendments presented to the assembly for concurrence are treated like proposals; therefore, an amendment to a simple amendment to a senate amendment is in order."
A.Rule 80 (4): "Bills, joint resolutions, resolutions and substitute amendments may not be divided."
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent for the following division of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations]. Granted.
108 Part 1: Campaign Financing
page 4, lines 6 through 29.
Part 2: Shared Revenue
page 11, lines 6 through 22.
Part 3: WISPTR
page 11, lines 23 through 37.
page 12, lines 1 through 31.
Part 4: Reapportionment
page 1, line 2.
page 4, line 5.
page 9, lines 36 and 37.
Part 5: Judicial Commission/Ethics Board
page 4, line 30.
Part 6: Balance of the amendment.
Representative Goodrich moved nonconcurrence in part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
The question was: Shall part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 be nonconcurred in? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-44, noes-51.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 be concurred in? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved nonconcurrence in part 2 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that a division of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not proper under Assembly Rule 80.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 17, 1983 .......... Page: 270
[Division of question is authorized interruption]
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent for a division of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations]. Granted.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the request for a division was not proper because Representative Johnson did not have the floor and was interrupting a speaker. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening business]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled Representative Johnson's request for a division of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83, while another member was speaking, proper under section 92 of Mason's Legislative Manual.
109 Mason's Legislative Manual, Section 92: 2. The speaker may be interrupted for the following purposes: (j) Call for a division of a question. [Note:] At the opening of the 1989 Session, the assembly adopted Assembly Rule 57 (1) (h): "Requesting a division of the question [rule 80]" is an authorized interruption.
Assembly Journal of June 21, 1983 .......... Page: 272
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent to withdraw his request for a division of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83. Granted.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 31, 1982 .......... Page: 3160
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 204 [relating to employment discrimination] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A.Amdt.4, which was adopted and concurred in, added to the bill a provision requiring employers to notify prospective employes of any grooming requirements.
Sub. (3) of that provision created a forfeiture for failure to so notify. By allowing the division, the chair could avoid possibly ruling the entire amendment not germane.
Representative Crawford asked unanimous consent for a division of assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 204. Granted. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled lines 12 through 15 of assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 204 not germane.
The question was: Shall lines 1 through 11 and line 16 of assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 204 be adopted?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-62, noes-34.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2550
[Division of senate amendment to assembly bill not allowed:]
Representative Hopkins requested a division of the question on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 62 [relating to renewable energy resources and increasing an appropriation].
[Note:] Division is permitted only for "simple", meaning "assembly", amendments under A.Rule 80 (1).
A.Rule 52 (2) (b) explains that senate amendments, presented to the assembly for concurrence, are to be treated as "proposals" and may be amended to the 2nd degree.
Following some intervening business, Rep. Hopkins offered A.Amdt.1 to S.Amdt.1 to AB 62.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that each senate amendment constituted a separate proposal before the assembly and, therefore, should not be divided under Assembly Rule 80 (4).
110 1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1976 .......... Page: 3398
[Background:]
