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.
Senate Journal of April 24, 1975 .......... Page: 596
[Point of order:]
Senator Bidwell raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 235 [relating to authorization to create a United States share deposit insurance corporation] affected the banking laws and therefore required a two-thirds vote for concurrence.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that Assembly Bill 235 did not fit the confines of Article XI, section 4, of the constitution which relates to banking and therefore, the point of order was not well taken.
Bills that may not be amended
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Fortis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 [relating to limits on wrongful death actions for loss of society and companionship] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) and (g).
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not substantially similar to a previously adopted assembly amendment.
The chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (g) because it is appropriate to consider an assembly amendment to a senate amendment to an Assembly Bill already passed by the assembly.
33 The chair ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e), because, had the assembly not considered an amendment when Assembly Bill 388 was originally in the assembly to limit the awards of wrongful death actions, an assembly amendment modifying the senate action would be in order. However, because the assembly previously took a position on limitations, the assembly must either accept the senate amendment to modify the assembly position, or adhere to the assembly position and nonconcur in the senate amendment.
[Note:] The reference to A.Rule 54 (3) (g) was inappropriate. That rule, speaking to bills for which amendments are prohibited by law, may be obsolete. Amendments to amendments are covered by A.Rule 52 (2).
When the assembly amended 1991 AB 388 before passage, A.Amdt-2, which raised the wrongful death award ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000, was ruled a nongermane expansion of the proposal because it included under the new ceiling the amount of any medical malpractice award. The assembly then adopted A.Amdt-1 (as aff. by Am-1 to Am-1), raising the ceiling on wrongful death awards from $50,000 to $250,000.
The ruling had removed A.Amdt-2 from consideration and vote by the assembly. Consequently, although the new A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 had some of the same ingredients as the earlier A.Amdt-2, it was not an amendment substantially similar to an amendment "already acted upon" by the assembly [nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (c)].
In adopting A.Amdt-1 to AB 388 as affected by Am-1 to A.Amdt-1, the assembly had rejected a $100,000 ceiling on wrongful death awards, and had passed a $250,000 ceiling. The senate, by S.Amdt-1 to AB 388, had lowered the proposed ceiling to $150,000.
Considering concurrence in S.Amdt-1, the assembly could: 1) adhere to its earlier position ($250,000, nonconcur in the senate amendment); 2) accept the senate position ($150,000, concur in the senate amendment); or 3) propose a compromise between the 2 positions by an amendment that would be germane not only to S.Amdt-1 but also to AB 388 as passed by the assembly [A.Rule 54 (5)].
Any assembly amendment for a dollar figure lower than the amount proposed by the senate and also lower than the amount earlier agreed to by the assembly negated the effect of the assembly's earlier action and was therefore nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (e). Both of the assembly amendments to S.Smdt-1 proposed to lower the ceiling to $100,000 (as indexed for inflation).
In addition, A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 again proposed to bring medical malpractice awards under the dollar ceiling for wrongful death awards, which was a nongermane expansion of the senate amendment under A.Rules 54 (3) (f) and (5).
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
34 The chair ruled the point of order well taken for the same reasons stated in the previous ruling. The assembly already acted on a similar assembly amendment when the bill originally was before the assembly and [A.Amdt-2 to S.Amdt-1] is not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 9, 1981 .......... Page: 629
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 359 [relating to demerit points for traffic convictions] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A bill introduced by JCRAR "to support the objection" to promulgation of a proposed administrative rule must be very narrowly drafted so as not to interfere with administrative rule-making generally.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the amendment not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) and the point of order well taken. The speaker stated that amendments which might otherwise be germane to the bill, are not germane in this case because of the limited scope of Senate Bill 359. The bill was introduced pursuant to section 227.018 (5) (e) of the Wisconsin Statutes to fulfill the statutory purpose of ratifying the action of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of September 5, 1979 .......... Page: 668
[Point of order:]
Senate amendments 1 and 2 offered by Senator Berger. The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1? Senator Murphy moved rejection of senate amendment 1. The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 1?
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 5, (September 1979) Special Session [relating to salary adjustments for elected state officials in the 1979-81 biennium, and authorizing an expenditure of funds] is not amendable as stated in the statutes.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
The statutes are clear and unambiguous in setting forth the manner in which salaries for constitutional officers and other elected state officials are to be set.
S. 20.923, Wisconsin statutes, has been reproduced below. Sub. (2) is the section which sets forth the salaries of constitutional officers and other elected state officials.
"The dollar value of the salary range minimum and maximum for each executive salary group shall be reviewed and established in the same manner as that provided for positions in the classified service under s.230.12 (3), except that adjustments of salaries under sub.(2) shall in addition be prepared in bill form by the joint committee on employment relations and submitted to a vote of the full legislature and shall not take effect until the bill is enacted without change."
35Budget bills (and budget review bills)
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 30, 1986 .......... Page: 629
Point of order:
Representative Seery rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 11 to Senate Bill 1, January 1986 Spec. Sess. [multi-issue budget adjustment bill], was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] Although the means differed, both A.Amdt.11 and A.Amdt.6 thereto reduced state costs by about $20 million.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 809
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] offered by Senators Chilsen, Hanaway, Theno, Lorman, Davis, Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although the bill itself changed the state homestead tax credit formula, it did not change the definition of "income" which is used as one part of that formula.
S.Amdt.2 attempted to exclude the first $15,000 of farmland depreciation from that "income" definition.
S.Amdt.7 (below) attempted the same change for the first $20,000.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and
noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 810
