Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 452 [relating to employment relations in higher education and making an appropriation] was pending.
[Note:] Under A.Rule 65 (2), tabling has a higher priority than amending but amending has a higher priority than indefinite postponement.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1127
[Point of order:]
Senator LaFave raised the point of order that indefinite postponement [of Senate Bill 203, relating to the right to be reimbursed under accident and health policies for chiropractic services] had already been voted on previously.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken [there had been intervening business].
Interruptions: when authorized
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 17, 1983 .......... Page: 270
[Division of question is authorized interruption]
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent for a division of assembly amendment 6 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]. Granted.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the request for a division was not proper because Representative Johnson did not have the floor and was interrupting a speaker. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening business.]
416 The speaker [Loftus] ruled Representative Johnson's request for a division of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83, while another member was speaking, proper under section 92 of Mason's Legislative Manual.
Mason's Legislative Manual, Section 92: 2. The speaker may be interrupted for the following purposes: (j) Call for a division of a question. [Note:] At the opening of the 1989 Session, the assembly adopted Assembly Rule 57 (1) (h): "Requesting a division of the question [rule 80]" is an authorized interruption.
Assembly Journal of June 21, 1983 .......... Page: 272
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent to withdraw his request for a division of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83. Granted.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 16, 1976 .......... Page: 3339
Point of order:
Representative Sicula rose to the point of order that he was allowed to raise a point of order on the germaneness of assembly amendment 6 to Senate Bill 255 while the roll call was being taken under Assembly Rule 9 (2) [point of order may be raised at any time except while motion to adjourn is before the assembly].
The chair ruled that interruption of a roll call was not permitted under Assembly Rule 15 (5) (c) and the point of order was not well taken.
[Note:] The issue was settled in the 1977 adoption of the assembly rules (A.Res. 6) which created the following rule:
"Any interruption of a roll call vote, from the time the voting machine is opened or the calling commenced to the announcement of the official totals by the presiding officer, shall be out of order except to raise a point of order concerning the taking of the vote."
Introduction and committee referral of proposal
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of January 23, 1980 .......... Page: 1143
[Point of order:]
417 Senator Opitz raised the point of order that Senate Bill 500 [relating to energy resources, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing penalties] was not properly before the senate because it was not introduced in accordance with Joint Rule 82.
[Note:] 1979 SB 500 was introduced on 1/4/80 (a day on which the senate did not meet) "by the Senate Select Committee on Energy". The committee had been established by 1979 S.Res.8 as "a special committe on energy", to serve until the conclusion of the 1979 regular session.
The rule cited does not mention a "select" committee, but specifically authorizes the chair of any special committee to offer, during any scheduled committee work period, bills "on behalf of that special committee and within the special committee's scope".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2628
[Point of order:]
[Assembly Bill 1511, "relating to a tax on copper mining".] Read first time and laid on the table.
Senator Keppler raised the point of order that the chair must refer the assembly bills on the message to some committee.
The chair referred the bill to the committee on Natural Resources.
Journal: contents of
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1990 .......... Page: 814
Representative Prosser moved that a transcript of the assembly floor debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 2 [relating to abolishing, over a 10-year period, the use of the property tax for school operations (2nd consideration)] be published in the Assembly Journal contingent upon adoption by both houses of the Legislature.
Representative Loftus moved that the previous motion be amended to also include a transcript of the assembly floor debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 18 [relating to the right to keep and bear arms (first consideration)] from Tuesday, March 6, also contingent upon adoption by both houses of the Legislature.
Representative Loftus requested a division of the motion as follows:
Part 1: Transcript of debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 2
Part 2: Transcript of debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 18. Granted.
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent that Part 1 of the motion be placed after Part 2 of the motion. Granted.
Representative Radtke moved that Part 2 of the motion be laid on the table.
Point of order:
418 Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion to table the motion to publish transcripts of debate was not in order under the Assembly Rules.
[Note:] No transcript of floor debate has ever been published in the Wisconsin legislature. Limited transcripts were published in the constitutional conventions. Based on the congressional model, transcripts of debates should be published in a "record"; not, in a journal of proceedings.
Any motion "involving distinct and independent propositions" may be divided; A.Rule 80 (1).
Procedural motions (motions relating to the immediate conduct of the current business) are usually not debatable (A.Rule 67), but the motion to table may be debated for 10 minutes (limited to 2 min/member); A.Rule 74 (2). Procedural motions usually may not be placed on the table; A.Rule 74 (3).
The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling found.]
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 21, 1980 .......... Page: 1385
[Background: Senator Lorge moved that Senate Joint Resolution 9 be withdrawn from committee on Human Services and be referred to committee on Senate Organization.
The question was: Shall Senate Joint Resolution 9 [making an application to the Congress of the United States pursuant to article V of the constitution of the United States, for a convention for proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States to protect the life of all human beings, including unborn children at every stage of their biological development] be withdrawn from committee on Human Services and referred to committee on Senate Organization? The motion did not prevail.
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge raised the point of order that the chair did not properly state the question before calling the roll. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 28, 1980 .......... Page: 1421
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Thursday, February 21, 1980, Senator Lorge raised the point of order that the Chair did not properly state the question before calling the roll on withdrawal of Senate Joint Resolution 9.
Page 1385 of the Senate Journal states "The question was: Shall Senate Joint Resolution 9 be withdrawn from committee on Human Services and referred to committee on Senate Organization?".
The Journal is the official record of the proceedings and does indicate that the question was properly stated. Therefore the point of order raised by Senator Lorge is not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 18, 1975 .......... Page: 284
[Point of order:]
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that the transmittal of the lobbylist from the office of the Secretary of State contained material which should not properly be spread upon the journal. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
419Senate Journal of February 18, 1975 .......... Page: 291
As it relates to the point of order raised by Senator Knowles regarding the proper form for the lobbylist, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that the senate journal was not the proper place for editorializing. Therefore, the clerk was directed to spread the list upon the journal without the cover letter. The point of order was well taken.
Lieutenant governor as senate president (obsolete May 1, 1979)
[Note:] In the April 1979 election, the voters repealed the former requirement that the lieutenant governor serve as president of the senate.
On May 1, 1979, the senate adopted Senate Resolution 3 which made the senate president pro tempore elected by the senate from among its members on January 3, 1979, Senator Fred Risser, the president of the senate for the remainder of the 1979 session.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 1, 1979 .......... Page: 303
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the Governor was absent from the state, that the Lieutenant Governor was serving as acting Governor and that pursuant to Section 9, Article IV of the Constitution and Senate Rule 2 (1), the Lieutenant Governor should not be serving as President of the Senate.
The Chair [Lt.Gov. R. Olson] took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling given?]
Senate Journal of March 1, 1979 .......... Page: 198
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the tie breaking vote of the Lieutenant Governor, Russell Olson, on the date of February 27, 1979 on the question of indefinite postponement of Senate Bill 5, as shown on page 183 of the Senate Journal, was contrary to Senate Rule 2 and Article IV and Article V of the Wisconsin Constitution in that at the time the vote was cast, Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus was out of the state; that the said vote therefore is null and void, with the result that the question of indefinite postponement failed on a 15-15 vote.
Senator Murphy raised the point of order that the point of order raised by Senator Bablitch was not timely.
The chair [Lt.Gov. R. Olson] ruled Senator Murphy's point of order not well taken.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the Lieutenant Governor was properly presiding on Tuesday, February 27, 1979 and that all action taken that day was valid.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the point of order raised by Senator Chilsen was not timely.
420 By request of Senator Chilsen, with unanimous consent, he temporarily withdrew his point of order. The chair took the point of order by Senator Bablitch under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 19, 1979 .......... Page: 269
The State of Wisconsin Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Ruling of the Chair on the Point of Order raised by Senator Bablitch on March 1, 1979, regarding (1) the legality of the Lieutenant Governor sitting as presiding Officer of the Senate on February 27, 1979, and (2) the casting of a tie-breaking vote by the Lieutenant Governor at a time when it is conceded that Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus was out of the state.
On March 1, 1979, Senator Bablitch raised a point of order that the tie-breaking vote by Lieutenant Governor Russell Olson on February 27, 1979, re: indefinite postponement of Senate Bill 5, as shown on page 183 of the Senate Journal, was contrary to Senate Rule 2 and Article IV and Article V of the Wisconsin Constitution, in that at the time the vote was cast, Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus was out of the state; that the said vote therefore is null and void, and the question of indefinite postponement, therefore, should have failed on a 15-15 tie vote.
Pursuant to the above point of order being raised by Senator Bablitch, the Chair invited debate and discussion, following which, the Chair took same under
