The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Bill 495 failed to pass because it required a two-thirds vote pursuant to Article XI, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1816
Assembly Bill 495 [relating to authorization to relocate a bank's principal office and to continue to operate the former principal office as a branch under certain circumstances]. Read a third time. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: ayes, 18; noes, 14; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
28 Ayes - Senators Adelman, Bablitch, Bear, Berger, Braun, Cullen, Flynn, Frank, Harnisch, Johnston, Kleczka, Lorge, Moody, Risser, Strohl, Swan, Thompson and Van Sistine - 18.
Noes - Senators Bidwell, Chilsen, Goyke, Hanaway, Kreul, Krueger, Lasee, McCallum, Maurer, Offner, Opitz, Radosevich, Roshell and Theno - 14.
Absent or not voting - None.
Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the bill did not pass.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1828
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 495 failed to be concurred in.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order the motion for reconsideration was not proper because Senator Lorge did not vote with the prevailing side.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1832
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge moved that the record on Assembly Bill 495 be expunged.
Senator Flynn raised the point of order that the motion was not properly before the Senate.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1835
[Motion:]
Senator Lorge moved that Assembly Bill 495 be referred to committee on Senate Organization.
The chair ruled the motion was out of order.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 28, 1978 .......... Page: 4075
Point of order:
Representative Travis rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 322 [relating to permitting credit unions to levy maintenance charges on dormant accounts] required a two-thirds vote of all elected members because it was a general banking law under Article XI, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken based on past precedents in judicial decisions, opinions of the attorney general and rulings of the chair.
Assembly Journal of April 13, 1977 .......... Page: 613
Point of order:
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 254 [relating to permitting irrevocable burial trusts] was banking legislation and required a two-thirds vote of all elected members for passage pursuant to Article XI, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
29Assembly Journal of April 13, 1977 .......... Page: 617
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hanson that Assembly Bill 254 required a two-thirds vote of all elected members because it was banking legislation under Article XI, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 2, 1978 .......... Page: 1877
[Point of order:]
Senator Petri raised the point of order that Senate Bill 246 [relating to allowing savings and loan associations to make consumer loans] needs a two-thirds vote to pass, since it pertains to banking legislation. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 9, 1978 .......... Page: 1926 Ruling of the chair:
On Thursday, March 2, 1978, Senator Petri raised the point of order that Senate Bill 246, relating to allowing savings and loan associations to make consumer loans, was banking legislation and required a two-thirds vote to pass. The chair took the point of order under advisement. Article XI, Section 4, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides:
The legislature shall have power to enact a general banking law for the creation of banks, and for the regulation and supervision of the banking business, provided that the vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, to be taken by yeas and nays, be in favor of the passage of such law.
Perhaps the most concise and useful guidelines as to what is and is not banking legislation can be found in a 1961 ruling of the chair (1961 Senate Journal, page 1599) where the following points are made:
*-general laws which apply to other institutions as well as banks are not banking legislation. *-bills which do not affect Wisconsin statute chapters 220-224 (which relate specifically to banking) are not banking legislation. *-Article XI, Section 4, must be strictly construed in the interest of effective legislation.
More detailed histories of the strict construction of Article XI, Section 4 can be found in the Senate Journal of April 14, 1977 (page 398) and the Assembly Journal of February 22, 1972 (page 3743).
Since Senate Bill 246 relates solely to the powers of savings and loan associations, not banks, and since there is nothing in Senate Bill 246 which purports to affect the creation, regulation or supervision of the banking business, the chair feels compelled to rule the point of order raised by Senator Petri not well taken.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of March 31, 1977 .......... Page: 310
[Point of order:]
Senator Berger raised the point of order that Senate Bill 55 [relating to exempting loans of $100,000 or more from the usury statutes] was banking legislation and therefore would require 22 affirmative votes for passage.
30 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
The question was : Passage of Senate Bill 55? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-10.] There being less than 22 affirmative votes the bill did not pass.
Senate Journal of April 7, 1977 .......... Page: 365
By request of Senator Parys, with unanimous consent, the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 55 failed to pass, was taken from the table and considered for action at this time. The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 55 failed to pass? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-22, noes-10.] So the motion prevailed.
[Point of order:]
The question was: Passage of Senate Bill 55?
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 55 was not banking legislation and therefore would not require 22 affirmative votes for passage. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 14, 1977 .......... Page: 398
On Thursday, April 7, 1977, Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 55 was not "banking legislation" and therefore would not require 22 affirmative votes for passage. The chair took the point of order under advisement. Senate Bill 55 adds a new paragraph to s. 138.05, commonly known as the state's usury law. Specifically, Senate Bill 55 exempts all loans of $100,000 or more from the maximum interest rate, prepayment and loan disclosure requirements found in s. 138.05.
It is important to emphasize that the statutory change proposed in Senate 55 relates exclusively to s. 138.05 .... the usury law. Senate Bill 55 makes no reference to ss. 220-224 which relates specifically to banking.
Since early statehood Wisconsin courts, the Attorney General and the Legislature have drawn a clear distinction between usury laws and banking legislation. The enactment or amendment of general usury laws has never required a two-thirds affirmative vote. Rock River Bank v. Sherwood, 10 Wis. 174, (1860); Brower v. Haight, 18 Wis. 102, (1864).
A concise summary of judicial case law on the subject of what does and what does not constitute banking legislation is found in the opinion of the Attorney General in 20 O.A.G. 1127 (1931):
"The gist of the (Supreme Court) decisions is that the constitutional requirement applies to substantive changes in the laws governing the creation of banks and the regulation and supervision of the banking business. General laws applying to banks as well as others which do not materially affect the creation of banks and regulation and supervision of the banking business do not require a two-thirds vote."
A point of order very similar to the one presently in question can be found in the Senate Journal of July 6, 1976, page 1599. There the president of the Senate ruled that Senate Bill 534, which established a maximum interest rate for loans under $5,000, did not require a two-thirds vote because:
1. The bill affected that section of state statute which contained the state's usury law, not those sections which related specifically to banks.
2. The bill is a general restriction which applies to banks only as part of a larger group and such proposals are not banking legislation.
3. Sec. 4, art. XI must be strictly construed in the interests of effective legislation.
31 A detailed explanation of what constitutes "banking legislation" and a detailed history of precedent on the subject can be found in the Assembly Journal of February 22, 1972, page 3743. The chair ruled that Assembly Bill 1057, a comprehensive consumer credit act, did not require a two-thirds vote because it constituted "'a general scheme' of consumer credit regulations which will apply to banks merely as one class of creditors coming thereunder. In no sense is it specifically designed for, or aimed at, banks in particular".... The chair also ruled that, "the extension of consumer credit is not exclusively a banking function and therefore the bill does not constitute banking legislation."
The most recent ruling on the subject is found in the Senate Journal of September 18, 1975 on page 1332. Here the president pro tem of the Senate ruled that Senate Bill 527, which made several changes in s. 138.09 relative to installment loans under the precomputed loan law, did not require a two-thirds vote. The chair based this ruling on 27 O.A.G. 839 (1938) which said that a law can apply to banks without relating to banks and banking (emphasis added) within the meaning prescribed by sec. 4, art. XI of the constitution.
Precedent relative to the pending point of order is clear and unambiguous.
The amendment or enactment of usury law is not "banking legislation" in the context or sec. 4, art. XI and does not require a two-thirds affirmative vote. Therefore the chair holds the point of order raised by Senator Sensenbrenner well taken.
Sincerely
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of April 14, 1977 .......... Page: 403
[Point of order:]
The question was: Shall the bill pass?
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that the vote by which Senate Bill 55 was ordered to a third reading be reconsidered. Senator Parys objected.
Senator Bablitch moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 55 was ordered to a third reading.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the motion for reconsideration was untimely.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 16, 1976 .......... Page: 2025
[Point of order:]
Senator Bidwell raised the point of order that Senate Bill 828 [relating to bank communications devices and savings and loan association remote service units] was banking legislation and therefore required 22 affirmative votes to pass.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
32Senate Journal of January 29, 1976 .......... Page: 1600
[Point of order:]
Senator Bidwell raised the point of order that passage of Senate Bill 415 [relating to placement of bank communication devices and granting rule-making authority] required a two-thirds vote. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 29, 1976 .......... Page: 1601
As it relates to the point of order raised on Senate Bill 415 the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that 22 affirmative votes would be required for passage.
Senate Journal of September 18, 1975 .......... Page: 1332
[Point of order:]
Senator Berger raised the point of order that the bill [Senate Bill 527, relating to instalment loans and forbearances by licensees under the precomputed loan law] is a banking bill and therefore requires a two-thirds vote.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the bill was not a banking measure pursuant to 27 Atty. Gen. 839 and therefore the point of order was not well taken.
