If the motion to reconsider is adopted however, the vote on the question which has been reconsidered "is canceled as completely as though it had never been taken," (Mason's sec. 467[1]) and "the question immediately recurs upon the question reconsidered." (Mason's sec. 467[3]).
At this point the reconsidered question can be put, or other motions which are proper may be offered.
When the question reconsidered is passage or concurrence of a bill, a motion frequently offered at this point is reference to committee or tabling of the bill. Such motions are proper.
If the bill is referred to a standing committee or tabled (which has the effect of referring the bill to the committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 65[2]) then the bill is also automatically returned to the 2nd reading or amendable stage.
When the bill is reported back out of committee the question is "shall the bill be ordered to a third reading," not "shall the bill pass" or "shall the bill be concurred in."
Obviously this ruling does not cover all procedural alternatives which are proper in every case of reconsideration. Some of the more typical are mentioned however, and it is hoped that the result is a clearer understanding of proper reconsideration procedure.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of June 30, 1977 .......... Page: 975
[Display of roll call (on page 962) omitted: ayes-20; noes-13. Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the senate refused to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor the vetoed part of the bill: Senate Bill 77, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1977 legislature, and making appropriations.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Petri moved that the rules be suspended and the vote on item V-A, section 1610h be reconsidered.
512 [Note:] Apparently, there was no ruling on the validity of the motion to reconsider the vote on the partial veto. Reconsideration of vetoes is expressly prohibited by 1977 Senate Rule 67 (7):
.... "Action on executive vetoes .... shall in no case be subject to a motion for reconsideration".
However, in the printed history of 1977 SB 77 (p. 456), the motion was entered as a "Motion to expunge the record and reconsider the vote on Item V-A".
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not proper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 24, 1976 .......... Page: 3598
[Special order of business:]
The question was: Shall the vote by which Assembly Bill 605 [relating to revision of municipal employment collective bargaining impasse resolution procedures, providing for final and binding arbitration, authorizing a limited right to strike, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] was ordered to a third reading be reconsidered? Motion carried.
Assembly amendment 35 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 offered by Representatives Looby and Johnson.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 35 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 be adopted? Motion carried.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 34 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 was adopted cannot be taken up until Thursday, March 25 since the motion was made on Tuesday, March 23 and must lay over for two legislative days under Assembly Rule 74.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 34 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 was adopted be withdrawn. Granted.
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1976 .......... Page: 2534
Point of order:
Representative Wahner moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 422 [relating to authorizing payment for psychological treatment under medical assistance, health insurance and cooperative sickness care programs and providing that psychologists' services may be performed without referral and supervision by a physician] be given a third reading.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 422 be given a third reading?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-49, noes-42.] Motion failed.
Representative Jackamonis moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 422 was ordered to a third reading. Entered.
513 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of Assembly Bill 422 was not timely because a roll call had been taken on suspension of the rules to give the bill a third reading.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1975 .......... Page: 1973
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration [of the vote on bill passage] was not in order because a vote on suspension of the rules to message Assembly Bill 277 constituted intervening business under Assembly Rule 74.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1975 .......... Page: 1265
Point of order:
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 321 be ordered engrossed and read a third time? Motion carried.
Representative Wahner asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 321 be given a third reading. Representative Shabaz objected.
Representative Shabaz moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 321 was ordered to a third reading. Entered.
Representative Wahner moved that the rules be suspended and that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 321 was ordered to a third reading be taken up at this time.
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration offered by Representative Shabaz was not in order at this time because there had been intervening business.
The chair ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly Journal of June 11, 1975 .......... Page: 1112
Point of order:
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Joint Resolution 44 was adopted which was entered on June 10, 1975 by Representative Dueholm was not in order.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken because adoption of the joint resolution by the assembly did not constitute final action and, therefore, the joint resolution had not taken effect.
Assembly Journal of June 11, 1975 .......... Page: 1112
Point of order:
514 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Resolution 22 [directing the assembly committee on tourism to study the impact on recreational areas of power equalization] was adopted which was entered on June 10, 1975 by Representative Ferrall was not in order. Representative Shabaz cited the ruling of the chair on 1971 Assembly Resolution 21 (1971 Assembly Journal, page 1000). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling given. New motion entered (p. 1113) by Representative Johnson. That motion passed on September 10, 1975 (p. 1760) and the resolution was rejected 49 to 48. The issue was settled in the 1979 adoption of the assembly rules (A.Res. 7) which created the following rule:
"The entering of a motion for reconsideration does not impair the effectiveness of any adopted resolution relating to the officers, members, procedures or organization of the assembly."
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 25, 1975 .......... Page: 990
[Point of order:]
Senator Dorman moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 300 failed to be withdrawn from joint committee on Finance.
Senator Whittow raised the point of order that reconsideration was not in order on a motion to withdraw from committee.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken as reconsideration of procedural motions is out of order.
Senate Journal of April 23, 1975 .......... Page: 591
[Point of order:]
Senator Harnisch moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 124 was refused passage.
Senator Petri raised the point of order that the fourteenth order of business [1975: "adjournment"] was not the proper place for moving reconsideration.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that pursuant to senate rule 67 (3), the point of order was not well taken.
By request of Senator Whittow, with unanimous consent, the motion for reconsideration of Senate Bill 124 was made a special order of business at 10:05 A.M. on Thursday, April 24.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 29, 1974 .......... Page: 2696
[Time for withdrawing motion for reconsideration:]
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 23 was concurred in?
Senator Risser moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-32, absent-0, with leave-1.]
Senator LaFollette asked unanimous consent that his motion for reconsideration be withdrawn. Senator J. D. Swan objected.
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that the rules provide that a senator can withdraw his motion any time, provided it is within the proper time limit.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator LaFollette withdrew his motion for reconsideration.
Senator Krueger moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 23 was concurred in.
Senate Journal of February 13, 1974 .......... Page: 2172
[Reconsideration must be moved by member of prevailing side:]
Senator Roseleip moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 44 failed adoption. [Intervening business - call of the senate.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the motion for reconsideration was not proper as Senator Roseleip did not vote with the prevailing side. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senator Bablitch moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 44 failed adoption, so that provided the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled favorable on the point of order, the reconsideration motion would be recorded as entered this day.
Senate Journal of February 20, 1974 .......... Page: 2224
[Ruling of the chair:]
On Tuesday, February 12, 1974, Senate Joint Resolution 44, proposing an amendment to the Constitution failed adoption, the vote being Ayes 16, Noes 14. This resolution required "the affirmative vote of a majority of the members elected."
On Wednesday, February 13, 1974 Senator Roseleip moved reconsideration, having been one of the 16 Aye votes. Senator Risser raised the point of order that Senator Roseleip did not vote with the prevailing side. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senator Bablitch also entered a motion for reconsideration having been one of the 14 negative votes, - in the event Senator Risser's point of order is ruled well taken.
According to the rules, the purpose of reconsideration is to allow a member who may have changed his mind on the prevailing side to have another vote taken on the subject.
In this case there were enough negative votes to prohibit Senate Joint Resolution 44 from receiving the required seventeen (17) affirmative votes. Therefore the 14 negative votes prevailed and the motion for reconsideration must come from one of these votes. Therefore, the point of order by Senator Risser is well taken, and the reconsideration motion by Senator Bablitch is the question on Senate Joint Resolution 44.
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 44 failed adoption?
Senate Journal of December 20, 1973 .......... Page: 36
