Local or private law bills (single subject rule)
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 25, 1989 .......... Page: 184
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that Senate Bill 65 [relating to the authority of a metropolitan sewerage district established by a 1st class city to recover capital costs and to expand its boundaries] is not properly before the Senate.
Senator Adelman, with unanimous consent, asked that his point of order be withdrawn. Senator George objected. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling of the chair [p. 188]:
Earlier today the senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman, raised the point of order that Senate Bill 65 was not properly before the senate because it is a local law relating to the 33rd senate district which is vacant at this time and that Senate Rules 7 and 8, "order and decorum", required the district to be represented. The Chair took the point of order under advisement. The Chair has closely reviewed Senate Rules 7 and 8 and finds no language that requires a senate district to be represented when issues relating to that district are being considered for action by the senate.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 15, 1986 .......... Page: 952
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 2, July 1986 Spec. Sess., relating to making an addition to and improvement
upon the state trunk highway system connecting I-90 and USH-51 over Avalon road in Rock county, including construction of an interchange, and making an appropriation] was not germane.
424 [Note:] In Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, 130 Wis. 2d 79 (1986), the Wisconsin supreme court reexamined the meaning of "special or private laws" under Wis.Const. IV-31.
Considered a part of the state trunk highway system, the I-road interchange at Avalon road near Janesville in Rock county had already been authorized in the budget, 1985 WisAct 29. To remove any doubt attached to that general-law authorization by the Brewers case, the July 1986 special session had before it the present bill, drafted under Wis.Const. IV-18 as a "local" bill, limited to "one subject" with that subject "expressed in the title".
S.Amdt.1, attempting to add to the bill a stretch of highway in Grant county, was a clear violation of the single subject rule for local bills, and was also beyond the purpose stated by the governor in calling the July 1986 special session.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Messaging bill to other house or to governor
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1986 .......... Page: 936-39
[Action when reconsideration of passage or concurrence fails:]
The question was: Shall the vote by which senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 6 to Senate Joint Resolution 1 [relating to authorizing the creation of a Wisconsin state lottery (first consideration)] was nonconcurred in be reconsidered? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-0, noes-99.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall the vote by which senate amendment 2 to assembly amendment 6 to Senate Joint Resolution 1 was concurred in be reconsidered? Motion failed.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate. Representative Schneider objected.
Representative Becker moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-62, noes-36.] Motion failed (less than 2/3).
Point of order:
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 1 should be immediately messaged to the senate under Assembly Rule 50.
[Note:] A.Rule 50 requires immediate transmission to the senate, for each assembly "proposal which passes after a 3rd reading, and each senate proposal adversely disposed of by the assembly, .... after any motion to reconsider such passage or adverse disposition has failed or the time for making such motion has expired, together with a certified report of the assembly's action".
425 Ruling on the point of order:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken because the reconsideration motions on Senate Joint Resolution 1 had failed.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1980 .......... Page: 2953
[Background:] Representative Johnson moved that Assembly Bill 1241 [relating to vacancies in nominations of candidates for certain offices] be immediately messaged to the governor.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion was improper.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because nothing in the rules prevented such a motion.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that there was no order of business that provided for messaging bills to the governor. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1980 .......... Page: 2956
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Shabaz.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Joint Rule 34 and Enrolled Joint Resolution 1 required the "chief clerk" to present bills to the governor but this motion would allow the "assembly" to present the bill to the governor; therefore, the motion required a suspension of the rules.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that the motion was proper and did not require a suspension of the rules.
Motions: maker's right to withdraw
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 22, 1988 .......... Page: 748
[Point of order:]
426 Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 351, relating to emergency detention, involuntary civil commitment, guardianship, protective services, transfer and discharge of involuntarily committed persons, recommitment evaluations, incompetency to refuse medication, emergency protective placement, training in emergency detention and emergency protective placement procedures for law enforcement officers, a presumption of good faith of individuals initiating emergency detentions, codifying a standard of performance for guardians of the
person, requiring health insurance coverage of services provided under a court order, requiring the department of health and social services to study the implementation of crisis intervention services, other mental health requirements and granting rule-making authority] is not germane.
Senator Engeleiter asked unanimous consent that senate substitute amendment 1 be returned to the author. Senator Risser objected. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 23, 1988 .......... Page: 775
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, March 22, 1988, the Senator from the 26th, Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 351 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Bill 351 is a comprehensive bill relating to mental health commitment standards and processes, and alternatives thereto. The bill sets standards for commitment, amends current law relating to guardianship and court-ordered protective services, emergency detention, training in emergency procedures, crisis intervention services and coverage of court-ordered services under medical plans.
Senate substitute amendment 1 relates solely to commitment and emergency detention of persons based on specific circumstances. The substitute amendment eliminates many of the provisions of the original bill.
Senate Rule 50 (7) reads as follows: "A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane."
Mason's Manual Section 402 (4) reads as follows: An entirely new proposal may be substituted by amendment so long as it is germane to the main purpose of the original proposal.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the main purpose of the original bill was to set standards for commitment. Therefore, in accordance with Senate Rule 50 (7) and Mason's Manual Section 402 (4), the amendment is germane, and the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2368
[Repetitive motion to table:]
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 937 [relating to the prohibition of the sale, distribution or use of 2, 4, 5-T and silvex and providing penalties] be laid on the table. Representative Shabaz objected.
Representative Loftus moved that Assembly Bill 937 be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Norquist rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order because there had been no intervening business.
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. Granted.
Senate Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 983
[Motion: right to withdraw]
Senator Harnisch asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 205 be withdrawn from committee on Education and Revenue and be taken up at this time. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Harnisch moved that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 205 be withdrawn from committee on Education and Revenue and be taken up at this time.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 205 be withdrawn from committee on Education and Revenue and be taken up at this time? [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 205 from committee on Education and Revenue and take up at this time be withdrawn. Senator Hanaway objected.
Senator Harnisch asked unanimous consent that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 205 from committee on Education and Revenue and take up at this time be withdrawn. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Bablitch moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-32, absent-1, with leave-0.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that a member making a motion could withdraw it without unanimous consent. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling given?]
Motions: priority of considering
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1988 .......... Page: 987
[Background:] After Rep. Hauke (majority leader) moved that the assembly stand adjourned, Rep. Welch "moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 300 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time". The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion out of order because a motion to adjourn was pending.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion was proper under Assembly Rule 90 (3).
428 [Note:] Assembly Rule 90 (3) A unanimous consent request or a motion to suspend the rules may be made at any time under any order of business by a member who obtains the floor, but not while the assembly is voting.
Technically, Rep. Welch may have been correct; see also Assembly Rules 65 (1) (a) and (c) which provide that a motion to suspend the rules outranks a motion to adjourn.
However, this was the last day of the final general business floorperiod; it was Friday night, the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and the session would end at midnight. It was not likely that the Senate could establish its position on the annual budget (AB 850) by that time, and return the bill to the Assembly for concurrence in amendments.
Speaker pro tem. Clarenbach probably based his ruling on Assembly Rule 90 (4), which says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for .... clearly dilatory purposes".
As shown be the subsequent action, the Assembly wanted to go home:
Representative Loftus moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1.
The question was: Shall the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-54, noes-42.] Motion carried. The assembly stood adjourned.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 21, 1987 .......... Page: 422
