The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because the tabling of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 76 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850 did not constitute "already acting upon".
Assembly Journal of June 26, 1987 .......... Page: 290
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion to table assembly amendment 70 to Senate Bill 100 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the general executive budget bill of the 1987 legislature, and making appropriations] took precedence over consideration of an amendment (assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 70) offered subsequent to the motion to table. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The chair ruled that, under Assembly Rule 65 (2) and (3), the motion to lay assembly amendment 70 to Senate Bill 100 on the table took precedence over consideration of an amendment introduced subsequent to the motion to table. The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 31, 1985 .......... Page: 544-45
Background:
Representative Hephner moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec.Sess. [relating to civil and criminal liability relating to alcohol beverages and providing penalties].
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be rejected? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-49.] Motion failed.
Representative Hephner moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be laid on the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-45, noes-44.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table.
618 Speaker Loftus in the chair.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-44, noes-44.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-9, noes-80.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table.
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that the motion to take assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., from the table was not proper under Assembly Rule 69 (2).
[Note:] A.Rule 69 (2) holds dilatory "two consecutive identical motions .... unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
The decision of what is "significant" business is made by the presiding officer based on the consensus of the body in the particular circumstances and time.
Repetition of the vote to take the amendment from table showed that the house was not as closely divided as the earlier vote had indicated. Immediately following (no other amendments were pending) the bill was ordered to the 3rd reading, the rules were suspended, and the bill was concurred in on a vote of 87 to 2.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-43, noes-46.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 4, 1986 .......... Page: 649
[Point of order:]
By request of Senator Plewa, with unanimous consent Senate Bill 94 [to Senate Bill 94, relating to recodifying and making technical and minor substantive changes in the administrative rule-making process] was taken from the table and considered at this time.
Read.
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 1 was concurred in?
619 Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the bill was not properly before the senate.
[Note:] Under S.Rule 41 (1)(c), a matter withhdrawn from a committee must, unless referred to a different committee, go to the committee on senate organization for scheduling.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 94 was referred to committee on Senate Organization.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 1122
[Tabling motion, inappropriate under suspension of rules:]
Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 815 [relating to the availability of dental, optometric, pharmaceutical and podiatric services under health care plans] be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the calendar.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 815 be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the committee on Rules. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Representative Johnson moved that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 815 from the committee on Health and Human Services and refer it to the calendar be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Merkt rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1051
[Tabling motion, permitted after taking from table:]
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 [relating to authorizing credit unions to act as depositories for public funds and designating the higher education corporation as a public depositor] be laid on the table? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-46.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be taken from the table.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be taken from the table? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-51, noes-47.] Motion carried.
Representative Shoemaker moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The motion was not dilatory because the status of the amendment (tabled, then taken from table) had changed.
620 The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be laid on the table? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-47, noes-51.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of March 22, 1984 .......... Page: 1037
[Tabling motion, repetition of:]
Representative Johnson moved that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663 [relating to the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise, inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation] be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order because that motion had been made and lost on Tuesday, March 20.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that, because significant intervening business had taken place since that time, the motion was in order. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1984 .......... Page: 788
[Motion to withdraw from standing committee:]
Representative Rogers moved that Assembly Rule 15 (1) and (5) be suspended and that Assembly Bill 148 [relating to prohibiting abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the pregnant woman and requiring the reporting of these abortions] be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time.
Representative Loftus moved that the motion be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Rogers rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 74 (3) because the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 148, which had not been in the Joint Committee on Finance for 21 calendar days, required a suspension of the rules.
Representative Loftus withdrew his motion to table. [Recess to 3:15 p.m.]
The assembly reconvened. Speaker pro tempore Clarenbach in the chair.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 148 be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 23, 1982 .......... Page: 2348
[Background: while disposition of A.Amdt.8 to A.Sub.2 to AB 452 remained undecided, Rep. Thompson (by unanimous consent) withdrew his pending motion to table AB 452 and then moved indefinite postponement of AB 452.]
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to
Assembly Bill 452 [relating to employment relations in higher education and making an appropriation] was pending.
[Note:] Under A.Rule 65 (2), tabling has a higher priority than amending but amending has a higher priority than indefinite postponement.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 13, 1981 .......... Page: 1188
[Background: Representative Thompson moved that senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 [relating to special inspection warrants] be laid on the table.]
Point of order:
Representative Plewa rose to the point of order that a motion to table a senate amendment [to an assembly bill] was not in order. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1982 .......... Page: 2817
Representative Plewa asked unanimous consent to withdraw the point of order he raised on Assembly Bill 169 on October 13, 1981. Granted.
[Note:] When the business on a proposal is limited to consideration of amendments from the other house, allowing such amendments to be tabled without tabling the bill itself fails to determine a status for the bill.
As soon as the point of order was withdrawn, Rep. Loftus obtained unanimous consent to place the entire bill on the table.
Two weeks later, the bill was taken from the table and special ordered. Both amendments were concurred in (Chap. 318, Laws of 1981).
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1981 .......... Page: 444
[Background:]
Assembly Bill 235, "relating to sexual activity between consenting adults and revising penalties", was indefinitely postponed on 4/28/81, A.Jour. p. 405, and Rep. Tesmer entered the motion to reconsider that vote on 4/30/81, A.Jour., p. 419. When reconsideration came up on 5/5/81, Rep. Loftus asked unanimous consent (Rep. Shabaz objected) and then moved to table the bill.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Rule 74 (2) prohibited a motion to table Assembly Bill 235 at this time because the reconsideration question pending before the assembly was procedural. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
622 [Note:] On 5/7/81, A.Jour. p. 466, Rep. Tesmer was given unanimous consent to withdraw her reconsideration motion on AB 235.
Unanimous consent had the effect of suspending A.Rule 73 (7), which prohibits withdrawing a motion for reconsideration when the time for making the motion has expired.
