Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 [relating to day care services and funds, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 be placed after assembly amendment 13 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434. Granted.
Assembly Journal of October 13, 1983 .......... Page: 421
[Intervening text omitted.]
Representative T. Thompson cited as precedent for his position on the germaneness of assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 the ruling by Speaker Anderson on May 21, 1975 on assembly amendment 65 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 222.
294 [Note:] See 1975 Assembly Journal, page 929, where Speaker Anderson held that the purpose of the rule ...."is to prevent repeated unnecessary consideration of the same subject matter once a conscious determination has been made"....
When necessary to express the true will of the house, even a minor change might make an amendment sufficiently dissimilar to escape A.Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Johnson well taken and assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 not germane.
Assembly Journal of June 21, 1983 .......... Page: 274
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly 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] was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was identical to assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 849
[Point of order:]
The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 256, relating to a revision of the obscenity law and the penalty for its violation]?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his point of order.
By request of Senator Chilsen, with unanimous consent, senate substitute amendment 1 was returned to the author.
The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 2?
Senate Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 850
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 873
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Wednesday, April 4, 1984, the senator from the 15th, Senator Cullen, raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 256 was not germane.
The senator from the 15th raised the point that senate substitute amendment 2 was identical in effect to Senate Bill 114 and senate substitute amendment 1.
295 Upon reading of the substitute, the entire first page and 18 lines of the 25 lines of material on the 2nd page are identical to Senate Bill 114 and senate substitute amendment 1. Lines 19 and 20 on page 2 set out a new prohibitive practice not identified in
senate substitute amendment 1 or Senate Bill 114; however, the practice is covered under current law. Lines 23 thru 25 on page 2 further define lines 10 and 11 on page 2.
It appears to the chair that the senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, is attempting to bring forth the same language as Senate Bill 114 and senate substitute amendment 1, by adding some new material to the amendment that is already current law. The chair has serious questions about this practice; however, when the question of germaneness is close, Mason's Manual Sec. 401 (5) states in part: "The Presiding officer should never rule an amendment out of order unless he is certain that it is."
Therefore, the chair is going to rule the point of order not well taken and the amendment is germane. [Intervening text omitted.]
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator George. The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling given?]
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 13, 1981 .......... Page: 1207
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to Assembly Joint Resolution 70 [memorializing Congress and the President to seek the dismissal of the Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Joint Resolution 70 [which had been rejected 53 to 42, A.Jour. p. 1203].
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 23, 1981 .......... Page: 999
Point of order:
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 [to Assembly Bill 616, relating to congressional districts] was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled that senate amendment 4 was identical to senate amendment 3 and therefore the point of order was well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2795
Point of order:
Representative Barczak rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 21 to Assembly Bill 1228 [relating to industrial revenue bonds and projects] was
296 not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided] because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 1228.
[Note:] A.Amdt.9 proposed: 1) to eliminate from the bill proposed provisions absolving the municipality, the redevelopment authority, and the members of the local governing board from liability for industrial revenue bonds; and 2) to insert into the bill a public information provision concerning materials submitted by eligible applicants.
A.Amdt.21 dealt only with the 2nd point.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 2699
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1178 [relating to permitting reserve judges to officiate at marriage ceremonies] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Note:] A.Sub.1 was identical to A.Sub.2, which had already been rejected. A.Sub.2 was considered first [in compliance with A.Rule 55 (1) (a)] because it was the last substitute introduced preceding consideration of the bill.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 1711
Point of order:
Representative McClain rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 14 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 [relating to domestic abuse, creating a council on domestic abuse, creating an appropriation and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided] because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169.
[Note:] AA-14 and AA-8 to A.Sub.1 (above) both mentioned a 2-year period beginning with the termination of a spousal relationship, but applied that measurement to different issues.
AA-5, AA-11 and AA-19 to A.Sub.1 (below) all proposed to limit the crime of "domestic abuse" to persons in a marital relationship, rather than any "spousal" relationship.
The chair [Rep. Gerlach] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 1714
Point of order:
297 Representative McClain rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 was not germane under Assembly
Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 which had previously been rejected. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 1717
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 19 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169.
The chair [Rep. Gerlach] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 31, 1979 .......... Page: 1670
Point of order:
Representative Quackenbush rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 777 [relating to creating various alternative energy incentives, making appropriations and granting rule-making authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 7 to assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 777.
[Note:] Both amendments proposed to grant a tax incentive for installing a wood energy system, but differed on the minimum qualifying investment.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 27, 1979 .......... Page: 994
Point of order:
Representative Kincaid rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 34 to assembly amendment 444 to Senate Bill 79 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided] because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 8 to assembly amendment 444 to Senate Bill 79.
[Note:] The 2 amendments, in identical wording, tried to remove from the budget a directive requiring the DNR to provide public access to lakes over 400 acres.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 13, 1979 .......... Page: 828
Point of order:
298 Representative Gerlach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 34 to Senate Bill 79 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive
budget bill of the 1979 legislature, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Note:] A.Amdt.34 to the budget made a change in the proposed tax preferential treatment of a "waste conversion energy system". This was the first time the issue was raised in the assembly debate of the budget.
It is not the purpose of A.Rule 54 (3) (c) to prevent the renewed discussion of an issue, as expressed in an amendment, when it applies to a different proposal or substitute.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1978 .......... Page: 3562
Point of order:
