The question was: Shall part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 be concurred in? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved nonconcurrence in part 2 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that a division of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not proper under Assembly Rule 80.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 268
[Point of order:]
The question was: Concurrence of 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]?
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that assembly amendment 4 was not germane.
[Note:] A.Amdt.4 was the super-amendment brought in by the assembly majority party caucus. It had passed the assembly. Interhouse comity requires
that the actions of one house be given full faith and credit by the other house [see Jeff.Man. 3-p and 17-s].
The germaneness of an amendment can be challenged only in the house of introduction [see S.Rule 50 (3)] because, under the state constitution, each house determines its own rules [Art. IV, Sec. 11].
57 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not properly before the senate.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Opitz appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-19, noes-13.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2550
[Division of senate amendment to assembly bill not allowed:]
Representative Hopkins requested a division of the question on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 62 [relating to renewable energy resources and increasing an appropriation].
[Note:] Division is permitted only for "simple", meaning "assembly", amendments under A.Rule 80 (1).
A.Rule 52 (2) (b) explains that senate amendments, presented to the assembly for concurrence, are to be treated as "proposals" and may be amended to the 2nd degree.
Following some intervening business, Rep. Hopkins offered A.Amdt.1 to S.Amdt.1 to AB 62.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that each senate amendment constituted a separate proposal before the assembly and, therefore, should not be divided under Assembly Rule 80 (4).
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 1665
Point of order:
Senator Moody raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 150 [relating to changes in the regulation of motor carriers and granting rule-making authority] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 10, 1982 .......... Page: 1670
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Tuesday, March 9, 1982, Senator from the 9th, Senator Moody, raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
58 Assembly amendment 1 deals exclusively with water carriers. Senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 deals with livestock and fluid milk haulers. Senate amendment 1
to assembly amendment 1 relates to a different specific subject [than] that assembly amendment 1, therefore, pursuant to Senate Rule 50 (7), senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 is not germane and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 9th, Senator Moody, is well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair.
The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-11.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.
Senate Journal of March 2, 1982 .......... Page: 1590
Point of order:
Senator Engeleiter raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 519, relating to the reorganization of city school districts into common or unified districts] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 1611
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Tuesday, March 2, 1982 the senator from the 33rd, Senator Engeleiter, raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 519 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 519 clarifies the action to be taken by the Fiscal Board or Common Council in the event an action has been taken by the electorate or the School Board to reorganize the city school district.
Senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 proposes a new procedure to permit the Fiscal Board, Common Council or the electorate to retain the city school district by referendum and prohibit further action by the Fiscal Board or
Common Council. Although the proposition would be germane to the bill it does appear to accomplish a different purpose than that of assembly amendment 1, and expand the scope thereof. Therefore it is the opinion of the chair that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 is not germane and the point of order raised by the senator from the 33rd, Senator Engeleiter, is well taken.
Senate Journal of May 7, 1981 .......... Page: 402
Point of order:
Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 5 [to Senate Bill 243, relating to limitation of state expenditure reductions, expenditure estimate procedure and state revenue shortfall procedure] was not germane.
59 [Note:] A.Amdt.5 established a trigger level (0.5% of general purpose appropriations) for notification, by the secretary of administration, of the governor and the legislature of an anticipated revenue shortfall.
S.Amd.1 to A.Amdt.5 proposed an entirely new procedure, not sanctioned by the state constitution, whereby the governor's recommendation to deal with a revenue shortfall "shall be effective" if the legislature failed to act on the fiscal imbalance within 30 days of notification.
S.Rule 50 (4), "an amendment to an amendment must be germane to the amendment as well as to the original proposal", deals with senate amendments to senate amendments.
When the senate considers an assembly amendment to a senate proposal, the business before the senate is limited to the assembly amendment; consequently, the question of germaneness of a further senate amendment falls under S.Rule 50 (1) which prohibits senate consideration of senate amendments: "intended to accomplish a different purpose .... or [which] would totally alter the nature of the original proposal".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2351
[Amendments between the houses:]
Representative Shabaz moved that the assembly recede from its position on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596 [relating to exempting solar energy home heating systems and electricity generating devices from the property tax].
Speaker pro tempore Kedrowski in the chair.
The chair ruled that the assembly could only adhere to or recede from its position and that no amendments could be introduced to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596.
[Note:] The assembly had considered S.Amdt.1 on 2/5/80 (A.Jour., p. 2105), nonconcurred, and messaged its action to the senate. The senate voted to adhere on 2/19/80 (S.Jour., p. 1365).
The question was: Shall the assembly recede from its position on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596?
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 1443
[Background: The question was: Concurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 260, relating to patient access to medical records? Senator Berger moved nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1.]
The question was: Nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-22, noes-10.] So the motion prevailed.
Senator Berger asked unanimous consent that the senate appoint a Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 260. Senator Kleczka objected.
Senator Berger moved that the senate appoint a Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 260.
60Senate Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 1444
[Point of order:]
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that the motion to appoint a Committee of Conference was not timely.
By request of Senator Berger, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to appoint a Committee of Conference.
By request of Senator Berger, with unanimous consent, all action on Senate Bill 260 was ordered immediately messaged.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled that because Senator Berger withdrew his motion to appoint a Committee of Conference the point of order raised by Senator Kleczka was moot.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 31, 1978 .......... Page: 4307
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 17 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1220 was an amendment in the 3rd degree and was not in order under Assembly Rule 48 (2).
[Note:] Section 409 of Masons's Manual of Legislative Procedure deals with amendments to amendments. It prohibits, as too confusing, amendments to the 3rd degree in the same house, but: "5. An amendment of one house to an amendment adopted in the other house is only an amendment in the first degree."
The concept was incorporated into the assembly rules in the 1979 rules adoption (A.Res. 7) by the creation of a new rule:
"Senate amendments presented to the assembly for concurrence are proposals for purposes of this rule and, therefore, an amendment to a simple amendment to a senate amendment is in order."
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken based on past precedents and section 409 of Mason's Legislative Manual.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3451
Point of order:
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion for nonconcurrence in senate amendment 1 was not proper under Assembly Rule 65 because that motion had been made previously and had failed. Representative Shabaz stated that the motion was also not proper under Assembly Rule 69 because there had been no significant intervening business.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 65 because the language "shall not be allowed again on the same day and at the same stage in the consideration of that proposal" required both conditions to be met. Because the motion for nonconcurrence in senate amendment 1 had been made and lost on a previous day, the motion was ruled proper.
61 The speaker ruled that the motion was also proper under Assembly Rule 69 because action on other amendments, action on other bills and adjournment constituted "significant business" under Assembly Rule 69.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3393
Point of order:
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) and (f) because it negated the effect of senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 and expanded the scope of the bill by adding the word "severely". The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1978 .......... Page: 3450
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Schneider on Tuesday, March 7 that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321 was not germane. The complete text of the speaker's ruling will be printed at a later date.
Assembly Journal of March 28, 1978 .......... Page: 4046
Point of Order Relating to Senate Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 321
On March 7, 1978 the Representative from the 93rd Assembly District, Representative Schneider, raised the point of order that, under Assembly Rule 50, Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1 to 1977 Assembly Bill 321 is not germane and, thus, is not properly before the Assembly. In support of this point of order Representative Schneider pointed out that:
(1) under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (e) "an amendment which negates the effect of another amendment previously adopted" is not germane; and (2) under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f) "an amendment which substantially expands the scope of the proposal" is also not germane. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Background
Assembly Bill 321 would prohibit the expenditure of state and local government funds on abortions except for: (1) those abortions which are medically determined to be needed either to save the lives of the women involved or to protect them from grave physiological injuries; and (2) those abortions performed to terminate pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Senate Amendment 1 eliminates the "grave physiological injury" exception to this general funding prohibition. Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Amendment 1, on the other hand, would amend the Senate Amendment to create a new exception for abortions performed to prevent "severe physiological injury." (Emphasis added.) Assembly Rule 50 entitled "Germaneness of Amendments" is the principal rule governing the admissability of amendments in this house. Because the rule contains a good deal of broad, general and even somewhat conflicting language, the Chair is repeatedly called upon to interpret the rule's application to specific amendments. In determining the meaning of any rule, the Chair has attempted to favor the simplest construction consistent with the language of the rule and its apparent intent, the language and intent of other related rules, the general status and purposes of the body of rules of which the rule under question is a part, and the general powers and responsibilities which have been given to this house. The case in point is no exception.
