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Senator LaFollette asked unanimous consent that his motion for reconsideration be withdrawn.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
[When reconsideration prevails, original question is again put:]
Senator J. D. Swan moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 11 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, 1973 Special Session] was adopted.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-14.] So the motion prevailed.
516 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 11 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Steinhilber moved rejection. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of December 20, 1973 .......... Page: 38
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the question before the senate should be one of adoption, and not rejection, as it was the question that was reconsidered.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of July 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1408
[Reconsideration permitted on rejection of conference report:]
Assembly Bill 300 [relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1973 legislature, and making appropriations]
The question was: Adoption of the Committee of Conference report?
Senator J. D. Swan moved rejection of the Committee of Conference report. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Adoption of the Conference Committee Report? Senator J. D. Swan moved rejection.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-10.] So the motion prevailed.
Senator LaFave moved reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected?
Senator Lorge moved the previous question.
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the motion to put the previous question was laid on the table.
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected.
Senator Risser moved a call of the senate [Display of roll call omitted; present-29, absent-0, with leave-4; intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-12.] So the motion prevailed.
Senate Journal of May 2, 1973 .......... Page: 937
[Background: senate had conducted some business by "unanimous consent".]
Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 396 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Lorge moved that Senate Bill 396 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time.
[Point of order:]
Senator LaFave raised the point of order that a motion for reconsideration was already before the senate [re SB 203; p. 934] and therefore the motion to take from the table was out of order.
517 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of February 6, 1973 .......... Page: 327
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 26 [relating to revising state life and property insurance and the state indemnity fund, granting rule-making authority and making appropriations].
The question was: adoption of senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 26?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-14.] So the amendment was adopted.
Senator Risser moved reconsideration of senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 26.
Senator Parys raised the point of order that the motion was not made in the proper order of business.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Risser asked unanimous consent to lay Senate Bill 26 on the table. Senator Parys objected.
The question was: reconsideration of senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 26?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-19.] So senate amendment 3 was not reconsidered.
Redistricting
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 4, 1983 .......... Page: 360
[Members to be addressed by district:]
Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) [a member is recognized by reference to district number rather than by proper name] be suspended indefinitely. Representative Johnson objected.
Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod. Representative Johnson objected.
Representative R. Travis moved that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod.
The question was: Shall the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-58.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of October 4, 1983 .......... Page: 360
[Motion cannot suspend state law; effective date of redistricting:]
Representative T. Thompson moved that the assembly return to using the district numbers in effect at the beginning of the 1983 legislative session.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order because 1983 Wisconsin Act 29 [relating to redistricting the senate and assembly based on the 1980 federal census of population and making miscellaneous changes in the statutes pertaining to decennial legislative redistricting] had taken effect.
518 Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended to allow the motion.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order.
Referral motion (to committee)
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 29, 1987 .......... Page: 514
[The question was "shall senate amdt.1 to AB 462 be concurred in?"]:
Representative Walling moved that Assembly Bill 462 [relating to the Wisconsin retirement system, allowing retired public employes to purchase state group health insurance coverage, fixed retirement investment trusts, transferring funds and making an appropriation] be referred to the committee on Rules.
[Note:] Only proposals (bills, joint resolutions, resolutions) are referred to committee; see A.Rules 42 and 45.
Amendments or substitutes offered in the house of origin while the proposal is still in committee are forwarded to the committee for filing with the proposal.
Although Mason's Manual (sec. 766.3, 1989 ed.) says that "it is proper for a house, upon receiving an amended bill with a request to concur, to refer the message with the bill to a committee for consideration and a report upon concurrence", Wisconsin practice is to refer the amended proposal directly to calendar.
In the Senate, S.Rule 41 (2) clearly addresses the issue: .... "Questions of .... concurrence in amendments of the other house .... may be placed on the table but shall in no case be referred to any committee."
In the Assembly, A.Rule 31 (6) serves the same purpose by providing for an order of business reserved for "consideration of senate action on proposals approved by the assembly".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the motion to refer to committee was not in order when the question before the assembly was consideration of senate amendments.
