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 May 19, 1977 .......... Page: 1050
Point of order:
Representative Duren asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 495 [relating to personalized license plates] be placed at the foot of the calendar
of Thursday, May 19. Representative Kirby objected. Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 495 be placed at the foot of the calendar of Thursday, May 19.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 495 be placed at the foot of the calendar of Thursday, May 19?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-46, noes-48.] Motion failed. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 495 be placed after Assembly Bill 385 on the calendar of Thursday, May 19.
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
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and that Assembly Bill 577 [relating to a limitation upon the rate of increase in real property equalized valuation] be withdrawn from the committee on Taxation and made a special order of business at 10:01 A.M. on Thursday, March 18. [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.]
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1976 .......... Page: 3160
Point of order:
Representative Behnke moved that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 [relating to prohibiting state and local subsidy of abortions] be taken from the table. The question was: Shall assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 be taken from the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call omitted; ayes-51, noes-46.] Motion carried.
Representative Rooney moved that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 be laid on the table.
102 Representative Norquist rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order under Assembly Rule 72.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken. [Intervening business: not tabled; AA-1 to AA-4 adopted; AA-2 to AA-4 rejection refused.]
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1976 .......... Page: 3162
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz moved that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 be laid on the table. Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory because it had been made twice previously.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken because the motion had not been made since the adoption of assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4.
Assembly Journal of February 5, 1976 .......... Page: 2446
Point of order:
Representative Dorff moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 [relating to establishing a 48-hour waiting period for the purchase of handguns and providing a penalty] be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 be laid on the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; motion failed 46 to 48.]
Representative Sicula moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 be laid on the table.
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because there had been no intervening business.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] According to the rule, "2 consecutive identical motions are dilatory unless significant business has intervened". However, there may have been an indication that several members wanted to change their votes, and allowing Rep. Sicula's motion was faster than reconsideration or expunction of the earlier action.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 be laid on the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; motion carried 52 to 42.]
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 3, 1975 .......... Page: 778
[Background:] Assembly Bill 222, relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1975 legislature, and making appropriations:
1. Rejection of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-14, noes 18; p. 776)
2. Tabling of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-16, noes-16; p. 777).
3. Motion for rejection of senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1.
4. Tabling of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-15, noes-17).
103 5. Senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 rejected (ayes-19, noes-13; p. 778).
[Point of order:]
Senator Whittow moved rejection of senate amendment 1.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 66 the motion to reject a second time in the same day was out of order.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Whittow moved that senate amendment 1 be laid on the table.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that there was no intervening business and therefore a motion to table again was out of order.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken as a vote on rejection was considered intervening business.
Division of question
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1990 .......... Page: 921
Representative Welch asked for the following division of assembly amendment 22 to Senate Bill 300 [relating to disposal and recycling of solid waste, granting rule-making authority, providing a penalty and making appropriations]:
Part 1: Page 9, line 27 thru Page 10, line 7 and Page 16, lines 4 thru 6.
Part 2: Remainder of amendment.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the request for division unacceptable.
[Note:] A.Rule 80 (2) appears to give the presiding officer exclusive control over questions of division: "If it is the opinion of the chair that the proposed division of a simple amendment is unduly complex or the purpose of the division can be more clearly or simply accomplished by amendment, or that a call for a division is being used as a substitute for a series of amendments, the question shall not be divided."
In this instance, Div-1 was the same as A.Amdt-5 to SB 300, and successive motions to table or to adopt A.Amdt-5 had failed on tie votes, 48 to 48. Using division as a means to reopen debate on A.Amdt-5 would have been dilatory.
On the other hand, A.Amdt-22 was a 16-page multi-issue amendment. Even though one or more of the issues contained in A.Amdt-22 might have been discussed earlier, their combined effect on the bill distinguished the multi-issue amendment from single-issue A.Amdt-5. Only an amendment "substantially similar to an amendment already acted upon" is by A.Rule 54 (3) (c) declared not germane.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 22 to Senate Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
104 The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1990 .......... Page: 814
Representative Prosser moved that a transcript of the assembly floor debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 2 [relating to abolishing, over a 10-year period, the use of the property tax for school operations (2nd consideration)] be published in the Assembly Journal contingent upon adoption by both houses of the Legislature.
Representative Loftus moved that the previous motion be amended to also include a transcript of the assembly floor debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 18 [relating to the right to keep and bear arms (first consideration)] from Tuesday, March 6, also contingent upon adoption by both houses of the Legislature.
Representative Loftus requested a division of the motion as follows:
Part 1: Transcript of debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 2
Part 2: Transcript of debate on Assembly Joint Resolution 18. Granted.
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent that Part 1 of the motion be placed after Part 2 of the motion. Granted.
Representative Radtke moved that Part 2 of the motion be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion to table the motion to publish transcripts of debate was not in order under the Assembly Rules.
[Note:] No transcript of floor debate has ever been published in the Wisconsin legislature. Limited transcripts were published in the constitutional conventions. Based on the congressional model, transcripts of debates should be published in a "record"; not, in a journal of proceedings.
Any motion "involving distinct and independent propositions" may be divided; A.Rule 80 (1).
Procedural motions (motions relating to the immediate conduct of the current business) are usually not debatable (A.Rule 67), but the motion to table may be debated for 10 minutes (limited to 2 min/member); A.Rule 74 (2). Procedural motions usually may not be placed on the table; A.Rule 74 (3).
The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling found.]
Assembly Journal of January 30, 1990 .......... Page: 635
Representative Grobschmidt moved rejection of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 [relating to requiring parental consent for an unemancipated child's abortion, informed consent of a woman to her own abortion, remedies in civil actions and providing a penalty].
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent for the following division of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38. Granted.
Part 1: the entire amendment except for the words "or incest" on line 8.
Part 2: the entire amendment except for the words "rape or" on line 8.
Point of order:
105 Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the division of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 was not proper under Assembly Rule 80.
[Note:] Although the requested division of A.Amdt-4 was unusual, it was not improper. Every one understood that, by adopting Div-1, that affected phrase would end "pregnancy is the result of rape" or, by adopting Div-2, "pregnancy is the result of incest". If both divisions passed, the phrase would read as shown in the printed amendment: "pregnancy is the result of rape or incest".
A.Rule 80 (1) provides that the request for division of an amendment shall be granted "if each separate proposition or action to be voted on is complete and proper regardless of the action taken on any other portion of the original question".
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Loftus moved rejection of Part 1 of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38.
Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 offered by Representatives Grobschmidt and Welch. [Intervening text omitted.]
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38 should be considered before the division of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 38.
