[Note:] Whether the senate meets in full session or in skeleton session is determined by the calendar prepared for senate consideration by the committee on senate organization under S.Rule 18 (1). Except for a special order set by the two-thirds vote of the senate, a full session cannot be set by motion.
It is interesting to note that this motion was made on 4/20/93 - the day on which the senate, resulting from the April 1993 special elections, reorganized with a Republican majority for the first time since the 1973-74 biennial session.
As part of the reorganization, the committee structure was changed and all proposals still in standing committee were rereferred within the new committee structure.
The Chair [President Rude] ruled him out of order.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1042
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 23 [relating to further consideration of proposals pending in the assembly] was not privileged and was in conflict with the provisions of the session schedule (Assembly Joint Resolution 1).
[Note:] On 3/26/86 the senate adjourned at 7:12 p.m., thus terminating its participation in floorperiod V under the session schedule. The assembly stayed in session.
At 11:25 p.m., Speaker Loftus offered A.Res.23 to focus assembly procedures on measures that could still be enacted, even with the senate gone. AB 229 on faculty collective bargaining was such a bill: except for a senate amendment, both houses had already agreed to it.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 23 offered by Representative Loftus.
Representative Loftus moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 229 be withdrawn from the calendar and taken up at this time. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Becker moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-79, noes-19.] Motion carried.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 1151
[Rules committee resolution for special order:]
554 Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 600 be laid on the table. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 600 was before the assembly.
[Note:] The Assembly Journal of Thursday, 4/5/84, at 11 a.m., recorded receipt of a Rules Committee report for special order scheduling of 1983 SB 600, "relating to establishing high school graduation standards, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation".
By unanimous consent (A.Jour. 3/29/84, p. 1093), SB 600 was already a special order for 10:01 a.m. on Wednesday, 4/4/84.
Two amendments to A.Sub. 1, A.Sub.2, and 8 amendments to A.Sub.2, were offered on 4/4/84 (A.Jour., p. 1121) and had to be copied and distributed. This may have bee the reason why SB 600 was not reached on that day.
Whatever the earlier status of SB 600, A.Rule 33 (3) clearly states that a Rules Committee special order resolution .... "shall be taken up and acted upon immediately, ahead of all other proposals then pending".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Resolution 25 [relating to scheduling 1983 Senate Bill 600 as a special order of business] was before the assembly under Assembly Rule 33 (3).
Representative T. Thompson moved rejection of Assembly Resolution 25.
Representative Kunicki in the chair.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 25 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-59]. Motion failed.
Speaker Loftus in the chair.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 25 be adopted? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-60, noes-39]. Motion carried.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 4, 1982 .......... Page: 3430
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 1, Second April 1982 Special Session, [relating to establishing a special order of business for Tuesday, May 4, 1982] was not properly before the assembly because it did not comply with Assembly Rule 33 (4) and (6) [resolution for special order of business].
[Note:] A special session operates under accelerated procedures which, prior to their codification in A.Rule 93 by 1979 A.Res.7, were enacted in identical form for each special session.
A.Rule 93 (4) states that, in special session, any measure referred to a calendar may be taken up immediately.
555 The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Resolution 1 was introduced under Assembly Rule 93 and did not need to comply with the requirements of Assembly Rule 33.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 853
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 79 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1979 legislature, and making appropriations].
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered the order of the day. Senator Krueger objected.
Senator Krueger asked unanimous consent that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Krueger moved that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar.
The question was: Shall Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-21.] So the motion did not prevail.
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Bablitch moved that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day.
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 854
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that it would take a two-thirds vote to consider the Item Vetoes presented to the Chief Clerk as the order of the day.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Senate Rules are silent on the order in which partial vetoes of a bill are to be considered. However, Senate Rule 47 (4) does state that the Senate by majority vote may direct the consideration of amendments. It is the chair's opinion that partial vetoes may be treated as amendments and the Senate may by majority vote direct the order of consideration.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Bidwell appealed the ruling of the chair. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] More than a majority of the Senate having voted in the affirmative the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.
The question was: Shall consideration of the Item Vetoes as presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day? The motion prevailed.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1977 .......... Page: 2227
[Background]:
556 Representative McClain moved that Assembly Bill 991 [relating to the standard deduction and filing requirements under the personal income tax] be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26. The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-41, noes-55.] Motion failed.
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26. [Call of the assembly.]
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion to make Assembly Bill 991 a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26 was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 29, 1977 .......... Page: 1695
[Special order of business:]
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the hour of 10:00 A.M. had arrived and the assembly had before it a special order of business, Senate Bill 91.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 16, 1976 .......... Page: 3334
Point of order:
Representative Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 577 [relating to a limitation upon the rate of increase in real property equalized valuation] be withdrawn from the committee on Taxation and made a special order of business at 10:01 A.M. on Thursday, March 18.
[Note:] [Similar motions had been made and lost on 2/3/76 (ayes-40, noes-54), 2/10/76 (38 to 58), 2/24/76 (40 to 55), and 3/9/76 (38 to 56)].
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory because it had been made several times previously.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Motion lost, ayes-41, noes-54; no further action on bill.]
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 25, 1976 .......... Page: 2163
[Point of order:]
Senator Murphy moved that Assembly Bill 421 be made a special order of business at 10:00 A.M. on Friday.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing had already been scheduled. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
557Senate Journal of March 25, 1976 .......... Page: 2165 Ruling of the chair:
As it relates to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 421, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that pursuant to Senate Rule 41 a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing has already been scheduled. Any attempt to do so would require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 9, 1974 .......... Page: 71
Senator Johnson moved that the question of merger implementation be made the first order of business on the calendar for the 1975 legislative session.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that this legislature could not determine the business of the 1975 session.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of May 2, 1974 .......... Page: 32
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson moved that Assembly Bill 2, Special Session, be made a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, May 7.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the motion would require a two-thirds vote, as there was no further business before the senate and it would be adjourned, if the motion prevailed. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 2, 1974 .......... Page: 34
[Ruling of the chair:]
As it relates to Assembly Bill 2, (Spring 1974) Special Session, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled a two-thirds vote would be required to advance a special order to a future date and effectively leave the senate with no further business.
