Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 92 offered by Representative Handrick.
The question was: Shall Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 92 be adopted?
Motion carried.
The question was: Shall Assembly Joint Resolution 92 be adopted?
Motion carried.
Representative Jeskewitz asked unanimous consent that all members of the Assembly be made coauthors of Assembly Joint Resolution 92. Granted.
Representative Grothman asked unanimous consent to be withdrawn as a coauthor of Assembly Joint Resolution 92. Granted.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Joint Resolution 92 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
Assembly Joint Resolution 93
Relating to: significant Wisconsin events.
The question was: Shall Assembly Joint Resolution 93 be adopted?
Motion carried.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Joint Resolution 93 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
Assembly Joint Resolution 94
Relating to: Wisconsin women's accomplishments and significant Wisconsin events.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 94 offered by Representative R. Potter.
The question was: Shall Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 94 be adopted?
Motion carried.
The question was: Shall Assembly Joint Resolution 94 be adopted?
Motion carried.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Joint Resolution 94 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
Assembly Joint Resolution 95
Relating to: celebrating the achievements of Wisconsin's African-Americans.
Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 95 offered by Representatives Riley, Coggs and Morris-Tatum.
The question was: Shall Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 95 be adopted?
Motion carried.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that Assembly Joint Resolution 95 be laid on the table. Granted.
Senate Joint Resolution 22
Relating to: naming a Seawolf submarine the "Manitowoc".
A493
The question was: Shall Senate Joint Resolution 22 be concurred in?
Motion carried.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 22 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
Senate Joint Resolution 29
Relating to: the life and public service of Arthur Lenroot.
The question was: Shall Senate Joint Resolution 29 be concurred in?
Motion carried.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 29 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
Senate Joint Resolution 30
Relating to: proclaiming Statehood Day Weekend.
The question was: Shall Senate Joint Resolution 30 be concurred in?
Motion carried.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 30 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
Assembly Joint Resolution 19
Relating to: establishing a sister-state relationship with the Cap Vert Region of Senegal.
Representative Morris-Tatum moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Joint Resolution 19 be withdrawn from the committee on State-Federal Relations and referred to the committee on Rules.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Joint Resolution 19 be withdrawn from the committee on State-Federal Relations and referred to the committee on Rules?
The roll was taken.
The result follows:
Ayes - Representatives Baldwin, Baumgart, Black, Bock, Boyle, Carpenter, Coggs, Cullen, Dobyns, Dueholm, Gronemus, Hanson, Hasenohrl, Hebl, Huber, Hubler, Kreuser, Krug, Krusick, Kunicki, La Fave, J. Lehman, Linton, Lorge, Meyer, Morris-Tatum, Murat, Notestein, Plale, Plouff, R. Potter, Reynolds, Riley, Robson, Ryba, Schneider, Springer, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Travis, Turner, Vander Loop, Wasserman, Williams, Wood, L. Young, R. Young and Ziegelbauer - 48.
Noes - Representatives Ainsworth, Albers, Brandemuehl, Duff, Foti, Freese, Gard, Goetsch, Green, Grothman, Gunderson, Hahn, Handrick, Harsdorf, Hoven, Huebsch, Hutchison, Jeskewitz, Johnsrud, Kaufert, Kedzie, Kelso, Klusman, Kreibich, Ladwig, F. Lasee, Lazich, M. Lehman, Musser, Nass, Olsen, Ott, Otte, Ourada, Owens, Porter, Powers, Schafer, Seratti, Skindrud, Sykora, Underheim, Urban, Vrakas, Walker, Ward, Wieckert, Zukowski and Speaker Jensen - 49.
Absent or not voting - None.
Motion failed.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that Assembly Joint Resolution 95 be taken from the table and taken up at this time. Granted.
Assembly Joint Resolution 95
Relating to: celebrating the achievements of Wisconsin's African-Americans.
Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Joint Resolution 95 offered by Representative Morris-Tatum.
Representative Riley asked unanimous consent that the entire membership of the Assembly made coauthors of Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Joint Resolution 95. Granted.
The question was: Shall Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Joint Resolution 95 be adopted?
Motion carried.
The question was: Shall Assembly Joint Resolution 95 be adopted?
Motion carried.
Representative Riley asked unanimous consent that all members of the Assembly be made coauthors of Assembly Joint Resolution 95. Granted.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Joint Resolution 95 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
__________________
RULING ON THE POINT OF ORDER
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Foti on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 421 from the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems was not in order.
On November 18, 1997, the Gentleman from the 72nd had moved to suspend rule 15 (1) (a) & (5), so
Assembly Bill 421 could be withdrawn from the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement and taken up. The Gentleman from the 38th raised a point of order that this motion was not in order per Wisconsin Statutes Section
13.50 (6).
The Gentleman from the 72nd then rose on the point of order and cited from the previous rulings of the chair three cases where precedent had been established.
A494
On October 28, 1983, Speaker Loftus ruled a motion out of order under section 13.50 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes. (Note: Under s.
13.50 (6), stats., when a proposal must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee and has been so referred, "such proposal shall not be considered further by either house until the Joint Survey Committee has submitted a report, in writing, setting forth an opinion on the legality of the proposal, the fiscal effect upon the state and its subdivisions and its desirability as a matter of public policy".) On October 6, 1981, Speaker Jackamonis ruled a similar motion out of order citing section 13.50 of the Wisconsin Statutes. On February 2, 1982, President Risser ruled on a point of order citing the same statutes.
Representative Schneider believed all three of these rulings came before the decision in State ex rel. Lafollette v. Stitt, 114 W (2d) 358, 338 NW (2d) 684 (1983). That case stands for the proposition that the court will invalidate legislation only for constitutional violations, not for violations of legislative rules in the statutes or elsewhere. Representative Schneider went on to propose that section 13.50 (6) is nothing more than a legislative rule like 15 (1) (a) & (5) or Joint rule
96 and they can all be suspended. Representative Schneider presented to the chair a memorandum from Peter Dykman, Acting Chief of the Legislative Reference Bureau in support of his contention that this particular statute was merely a rule and it could be suspended.
As presiding officer I took the point of order under advisement. Since then I have read the Stitt opinion, the previous rulings of the chair, as well as Masons manual, and assembly rule books dating as far back as 1943. I also looked at the relevant Wisconsin Statutes, when they were created and their correlation to the rules of the Legislature. Section
13.50 (6) was created in 1963 as
Chapter 153, laws of 1963 as 13.44 (9) with exact wording as it appears today. In 1977, through Assembly Resolution 6, assembly rule
26 was first created which is our current rule 15 (1). It appears to me that the legislative intent behind the statutes was to create a process that had to be followed and was not to be circumvented.
I then looked at the sequencing of the previous rulings along with the Supreme Court decision. The Jackamonis and Risser decision were handed down prior to the Supreme Court Decision and the Loftus decision came after the Supreme Court decision.
This ruling presents this institution with a dilemma. If these statutes are merely rules that we can easily disregard, then long standing traditions and requirements that this institution has followed will cease to exist. For example, we would no longer need to have appropriation bills referred to the Joint Committee on Finance, in fact we would no longer even be required to have a Joint Committee on Finance. Legislation submitting referenda to the voters would no longer need to contain the precise wording of the question which is submitted to the voters. The required General Fund Balance in the statutes could simply be ignored. Legislation that spends money could be passed at any time, even before the budget passes.
A question remains as to why previous legislatures first created statutes then 14 years later created the same as a rule. I believe they wanted a process that would not allow for certain procedures to be bypassed. The Stitt decision I believe merely supports the notion that it is for the Legislature to decide and enforce its own rules. We clearly have the authority to suspend our own rules with a 2/3rds vote or by unanimous consent. It is this chairs ruling that we do not have the authority to suspend statutes when points of order are made. I believe the precedent that has been established by Speakers Jackamonis and Loftus and President Risser which occurred before and after the Stitt decision still stands.
As a cosponsor of the bill, it would be very desirable for me to simply disregard these previous rulings and help the bill become law. However, I believe strongly in the institution and its precedents, and therefore I must find the point of order well taken. It is clear to me that we can ignore our own rules but we cannot suspend statutes. This decision was based on these three previous rulings and the precedent that was established by placing both legislative statutes and rules as an order of process for legislation to pass.
Representative Schneider appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the ruling of the Assembly?
The roll was taken.
The result follows:
Ayes - Representatives Ainsworth, Albers, Brandemuehl, Dobyns, Duff, Foti, Freese, Gard, Goetsch, Green, Grothman, Gunderson, Hahn, Handrick, Harsdorf, Hoven, Huebsch, Hutchison, Jeskewitz, Johnsrud, Kaufert, Kedzie, Kelso, Klusman, Kreibich, Ladwig, F. Lasee, Lazich, M. Lehman, Lorge, Musser, Nass, Olsen, Ott, Otte, Ourada, Owens, Porter, Powers, Schafer, Seratti, Skindrud, Sykora, Underheim, Urban, Vrakas, Walker, Ward, Wieckert, Zukowski and Speaker Jensen - 51.
Noes - Representatives Baldwin, Baumgart, Black, Bock, Boyle, Carpenter, Coggs, Cullen, Dueholm, Gronemus, Hanson, Hasenohrl, Hebl, Huber, Hubler, Kreuser, Krug, Krusick, Kunicki, La Fave, J. Lehman, Linton, Meyer, Morris-Tatum, Murat, Notestein, Plale, Plouff, R. Potter, Reynolds, Riley, Robson, Ryba, Schneider, Springer, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Travis, Turner, Vander Loop, Wasserman, Williams, Wood, L. Young, R. Young and Ziegelbauer - 46.
Absent or not voting - None.
Motion carried.
Representative Hahn asked unanimous consent that all members of the Assembly be made coauthors of Assembly Joint Resolution 75, Assembly Joint Resolution 87, Assembly Joint Resolution 93, Assembly Joint Resolution 94, Senate Joint Resolution 22, Senate Joint Resolution 29, and Senate Joint Resolution 30. Granted.
Assembly Bill 497
Relating to: seizure of motor vehicles for offenses related to driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.
The question was: Assembly Bill 497 having been read three times, shall the bill be passed?
Motion carried.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill
497 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
