Action on the Senate Message
Senate Bill 20
Relating to: transfer of certain fish and game approvals to persons with disabilities and the transfer of Class A bear licenses to persons awarded the Purple Heart or serving on active duty in the U.S. armed forces.
By Senator Roth; cosponsored by Representative Jacque.
Ruling on the Point of Order
On Wednesday, October 21, (page 341 of the Assembly Journal), Representative Barca rose to the point of order that reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 387 was engrossed required a 2/3 vote.
Speaker Pro Tempore August ruled the point of order not well taken. The full text of the ruling by Speaker Pro Tempore August follows:
“Representative Barca raised a point of order that the motion to reconsider engrossment of Assembly Bill 387 made by Representative Steineke had not passed because two-thirds of members present had not voted aye. Representative Barca pointed to Assembly Rule 33 (4) which states, in part, “The motion to advance the proposal to its 3rd reading and the motion to message the proposal to the other house may be adopted by a majority of the members present and voting.” Representative Barca correctly points out that advancing a proposal under a special order of business or messaging a proposal under a special order of business to the other house requires a majority of members voting. Assembly Rule 33 (4) makes this clarification due to the fact that under a normal order of business, advancing a proposal to its 3rd reading or messaging a proposal to the other house on the same legislative day requires a suspension of the rules motion, which requires a 2/3 vote. Assembly Rule 33 is silent on what threshold is required to reconsider any action on a special order of business. Because this rule is silent on the matter, consulting Assembly Rule 76 is necessary. Assembly Rule 76 (1) states “Unless otherwise required by the state constitution, by law, or by legislative rule, all questions are decided by a majority of a quorum.”
After a review of the state constitution, state law, and Assembly Rules, there are no additional requirements placed on thresholds required for a motion to reconsider to prevail. Therefore all questions relating to reconsidering an action on a proposal are decided by a majority of a quorum. Representative Steineke’s motion to reconsider engrossment of Assembly Bill 387 clearly and without ambiguity achieved more than a majority of the quorum present. Therefore I find Representative Barca’s point of order not well taken.”
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
October 23, 2015
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
The following bill, originating in the Assembly, has been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Bill Number Act Number Date Approved
hist42472Assembly Bill 325 63 October 23, 2015
Pursuant to s. 35.095 (1)(b), Wisconsin Statutes, the following 2015 Act has been published:
Act Number Bill Number Publication Date
hist42473Wisconsin Act 63 Assembly Bill 325 October 24, 2015
October 26, 2015
Patrick E. Fuller
Assembly Chief Clerk
17 West Main Street, Suite 401
Madison, WI 53703
Dear Chief Clerk Fuller:
hist42531Please add my name as a co-author of Assembly Bill 454, relating to modifying and repealing various rules promulgated by the Department of Transportation.
24th Assembly District
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Reference Bureau
Date: October 26, 2015
To: Patrick E. Fuller, Assembly Chief Clerk
Jeffrey Renk, Senate Chief Clerk
From: Bruce J. Hoesley, Code Editor
Subject: Rules published in the October, 2015 Wisconsin Administrative Register, No. 718.
The following rules have been published: