The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66 be returned to the Assembly? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-22.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
Point of order:
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that both the majority and minority parties agreed Assembly Bill 66 was unconstitutionally before the senate.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the record will show that the majority party does not concede that Assembly Bill 66 is unconstitutionally before the senate.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
40 Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the senate?
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 13, 1977 .......... Page: 1403
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to assembly amendment 262 to Senate Bill 77 [budget bill] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 3, 1977 .......... Page: 1284
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 125 [new crime: child pornography] to Senate Bill 77 [budget bill] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Shabaz appealed the ruling of the chair. Representative Olson asked unanimous consent that all members of the assembly be made co-authors of assembly amendment 125 to Senate Bill 77.
Representative Bear objected. [Representatives Dorff, Menos, Duren and Ward] asked unanimous consent to be made a co-author of assembly amendment 125 to Senate Bill 77. Granted.
Representative Olson asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 125 to Senate Bill 77 be withdrawn and returned to the authors. Granted.
Representative Wahner asked unanimous consent to withdraw his point of order. Granted.
Budget out of balance
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1991 .......... Page: 574
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that to override item veto C-30 of Assembly Bill 91 would violate s. 20.003 (4) [required general fund balance] of the Wisconsin Statutes. He cited as precedents the point of order on 1985 Assembly Bill 447 raised on January 28, 1986.
41 [Note:] The 1986 precedent concerned a proposed new expenditure at a time when the state's revenue projections indicated that the general fund balance was likely to dip below the minimum.
Section 10 (2) (b) of article V of the constitution directs the legislature to reconsider partial vetoes of appropriation bills and, having decided to attempt the override of a specific partial veto, a statutory rule cannot prevent the legislature from acting under the constitution.
Until the legislature adjourns sine die without providing the balanced budget required by section 5 of article VIII [annual tax levy to equal expenses], it cannot be said that an anticipated negative budget balance resulting from a veto override violates the state constitution. Even if the legislature so adjourns, the conflict between the 2 provisions of the constitution will have to be decided in the courts.
The presiding officer cannot determine the constitutionality of a proposition.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 28, 1986 .......... Page: 603
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 447 [to authorize and direct expenditure of $25,000 from the general fund for payment of a claim against the state made by Robert L. Borum] could not be considered for action at this time under section 20.003 (4) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] In January 1986, the state was faced with a revenue shortfall likely to reduce the balance in the treasury below the minimum (1% of biennial GPR appropriations) mandated by s. 20.003 (4), stats.
1985 WisAct 120 adjusted state expenditures to anticipated revenues. The Borum claim bill was taken up, failed to pass 43 to 54, and reconsideration failed 49 to 50 (A.Jour. 2/13/86, p. 683).
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1986 .......... Page: 663
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Loftus ruled that the point of order raised by Representative Prosser on Assembly Bill 447 on January 28, 1986, was moot with the enactment of Senate Bill 1, January 1986 Spec. Sess. (1985 Wisconsin Act 120).
Call of this house: business continues except on the specific question
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3392
Point of order:
42 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the assembly should proceed to the next amendment to Assembly Bill 321 instead of proceeding to the next order of business while under call.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken and cited as precedent a ruling made on May 10, 1973 (1973 Assembly Journal page 1320).
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3394
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the assembly should proceed to the next amendment to Assembly Bill 321 instead of proceeding to the next order of business while the point of order on senate amendment 1 is under advisement.
The speaker ruled that the assembly would proceed to the next amendment in this particular instance without establishing a precedent.
[Note:] In 1978, A.Rule 89 (1) provided: "While the assembly is under call, business may be transacted as though there were no call except that no further proceedings may be taken with reference to the matter concerning which
the call was ordered." Speaker Anderson, on 5/10/73 (p. 1320) had "held that 'matter' .... meant the specific question involved and not consideration of the entire bill."
The issue was clarified in the 1979 rules adoption (A.Res. 7) so that consideration of other specific questions concerning the same proposal may continue while the assembly is under call on the original "specific question":
"Business may be transacted is if there were no call except that no further action may be taken on the specific question under consideration when the call was ordered."
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 27, 1974 .......... Page: 2601
[Call re suspension of rules:]
Senator Bidwell moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 837 be considered for action at this time. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 837 [relating to cancellation of franchises] be considered for action at this time?
Senator Steinhilber moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-22, absent-10, with leave-1.]
Senate Journal of March 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2637
[Point of order:]
All members being present, the question was: Shall Assembly Bill 837 [relating to cancellation of franchises] be considered for action at this time.
Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that this required a suspension of the rules.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1837
[Background:]
43 Senator Parys moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 354 was placed on the calendar of January 30, 1974.
Senator Parys moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-29, absent-1, with leave-3; intervening text omitted.]
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the call was raised.
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the senate recessed until 2:00 P.M. [Recess, 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.; intervening business]
Senate Journal of October 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1844
[Point of order:]
Senator Parys raised the point of order that since the call was raised at the recess Assembly Bill 354 was before the senate.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of October 9, 1973 .......... Page: 1668
[Background:]
By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 49 was considered for action at this time.
Senator Johnson moved that Senate Bill 49 be laid on the table.
Senator Risser moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-28, absent-3, with leave-2].
By request of Senator Parys, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 73 was considered for action at this time. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of October 9, 1973 .......... Page: 1671
[Point of order:]
Senator Schuele raised the point of order that all members being present Senate Bill 49 was before the senate. ( By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 49 was placed at the head of the calendar of April 11.
The question on which the call of the senate was put having been disposed of, the call was raised.
Call of this house: motion to raise
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 16, 1983 .......... Page: 264
[Repetitive calls dilatory:]
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds. The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-1.]
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Granted.
44 Representative T. Thompson moved a call of the assembly.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 88.
[Intervening business: roll call vote to reject A.Res.13 failed.]
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-3.]
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Representative T. Thompson moved that the absent members be located.
