Senator Van Sistine raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 6, April 1992 Spec.Sess., relating to restricting gambling conducted by the state to the forms of gambling that the state is currently conducting, creating a council on charitable gaming, and the forms of gambling that may be conducted by Indians on tribal lands] was not germane.
[Note:] The purpose of the bill was limited to defining the types of gambling permitted in this state as part of the "state lottery" and to enumerate the types of gambling that remained prohibited.
S.Amdt-1, which was adopted (rejection had failed 13 to 20) and enacted as part of 1991 WisAct 321, restricts the legislature's law-making power by prohibiting the consideration by either house of any bill to legalize one of the prohibited forms of gambling unless: 1) the legislature first enacts a bill for a statewide advisory referendum on that form of gambling; and 2) the people, by voting on the question, authorize legislative consideration of legalizing that form of gambling.
For a contrary ruling, see Ably.Jour. of 5/5/92 at p. 1175.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of March 24, 1992 .......... Page: 782
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that Senate amendment 2 [to Assembly Bill 567, relating to pupils' right to freedom of expression in public schools] was not germane.
[Note:] The bill provided that, subject to limitations enumerated in the proposal, students in public schools have the right to exercise freedom of expression in official school publications.
S.Amdt-2 clarified that the guarantee of a freedom of expression in official school publications did not require a school board to publish an official school publication nor, if the school has an official publication, to publish or distribute in the official publication any advertisement, promotional material or article produced by a person who is not a pupil enrolled in that school district.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1990 .......... Page: 858
Point of order:
372 Representative Bock rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 699 [relating to pupils' right to freedom of expression in public schools] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] A.Amdt-1 to A.Sub-2 was a floor amendment which added, to the bill's proposed pupil right of free expression in public school publications: "The right of expression includes religious expression".
The presiding officer is limited to ruling on germaneness. Whether or not a proposition is unconstitutional is ultimately a question for the courts. In this case, after the amendment was ruled germane the assembly refused 29 to 64 to table the amendment, adopted the amendment and adopted the substitute on voice votes, advanced to 3rd reading by unanimous consent, and passed the bill to the senate 87 to 10 where it died in committee without further action.
Ruling of the chair:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Bock that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 699 was not germane.
Assembly Journal of December 21, 1989 .......... Page: 569
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 13, Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess., as amended by the senate, [relating to funding for a 2nd-dose immunization series for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and making an appropriation] was not germane to the call of the Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. under Assembly Rule 93.
[Note:] The governor's original call convening the October 1989 special session, dated 9/29/89, mentioned only problems related to drug abuse and illegal drugs. A bill on measles immunization would have been outside the scope of that call.
On December 15, Gov. Tommy Thompson issued a supplementary call (S.Jour., p. 578) adding 2 more items to the special session agenda. The first of these items was: "To enact legislation to provide funding for vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella".
As introduced, Oc9-SB 13 merely increased an existing appropriation by $2,000,000. As reported by the joint finance committee (S.Sub-2) and amended and passed by the senate, Oc9-SB 13 still included that appropriation and, in addition, contained provisions on the implementation of the vaccination program,
possible federal funding, and a report on available health insurance coverage for required immunizations.
In setting the agenda for a special session, the governor can only outline the issues. The specific detail of dealing with each issue is the prerogative of the legislature.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
373Assembly Journal of November 7, 1989 .......... Page: 460
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 81 [relating to reducing, by income tax credits or by payments from state revenues, property taxes on residential property as defined by law (first consideration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] When originally introduced, the uniformity clause exception proposed by 1989 AJR 81 read as follows:
The legislature may reduce property taxes imposed upon residential property, as defined by law, by authorizing credits against income taxes imposed by this state or payments from state revenues.
From the discussions concerning 1989 AJR 81, it seems likely that "residential property, as defined by law", was intended to include the primary residence of every resident of this state. But, some people felt that residential property might be understood to mean housing only in residential areas, and Rep. Wineke's Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 expanded the phrase to read "residential and agricultural real property, as defined by law" so as to express that residential property, as defined by law, will qualify for property tax relief both in municipalities and on farms.
Ruling of the chair:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Prosser that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 81 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
Assembly Journal of November 2, 1989 .......... Page: 438
Point of order:
Representative Rutkowski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 242 [relating to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, drugs or both and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
374 [Note (apparently, this research was not available to the presiding officer at the time, and he ruled the amendment not germane):]
As introduced, 1989 AB242 created general minimum penalties for OWI repeat offenses within a 5-year period. Under existing law, if the current offense was the 3rd or subsequent offense within a 5-year period, the person was to be fined not less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 days nor more than one year in the county jail. The bill increased the mandatory minimum jail sentence for certain repeat OWI offenders: if the current offense was the 4th offense in the 5-year period, the mandatory minimum jail sentence would be 60 days, and if the current offense was the 5th or subsequent offense in the 5-year period, the mandatory minimum jail sentence would be 6 months.
A.Amdt-1 retained the bill's 4th offense and 5th offense mandatory minimum jail sentences for simple OWI convictions. In addition, for the 3 most serious OWI offenses - causing the death of, great bodily harm to, or injury to another person - the amendment imposed stiffer penalties and longer periods of motor vehicle operating privilege revocation as follows:
OWI causing death. Under existing law, a person who caused death in an OWI offense could be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years or both and the person's operating privilege was revoked for 5 years. Under A.Amdt-1, if the person had a prior OWI or related violation within a 5-year period, the maximum period of imprisonment was increased to 10 years and the revocation period became not less than 5 years nor more than 10 years.
OWI causing great bodily harm. Under existing law, a person who caused great bodily harm in an OWI offense could be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years or both and the person's operating privilege was revoked for 2 years. Under A.Amdt-1, if the person had a prior OWI or related violation within a 5-year period, the maximum period of imprisonment was increased to 5 years and the revocation period became not less than 5 years nor more than 10 years.
OWI causing injury. Under existing law, a person who caused injury in an OWI offense was to be fined not less than $300 nor more than $2,000 and could be imprisoned not less than 30 days nor more than one year in the county jail; also, the person's operating privilege was to be revoked for not less than one year nor more than 2 years. Under A.Amdt-1, if the person had a prior OWI or related violation within a 5-year period, the maximum fine was increased to $10,000, the maximum period of imprisonment was increased to 2 years and the revocation period became not less than 2 years nor more than 10 years.
Germaneness of amendment The general rule of germaneness is stated in Assembly Rule 54 (1). An amendment is not germane if it "relates to a different subject or is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates".
1989 AB242 dealt with a general proposition: penalties for OWI convictions; i.e. resulting from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or drugs, or both. It imposed higher fines and
longer imprisonment for any person now convicted of simple OWI (without killing, maiming or injuring another person) if that person, in the past 5 years, was convicted also of any other OWI offenses including simple OWI or the 3 most serious OWI offenses.
A.Amdt-1 dealt with the same subject as 1989 AB242: operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or drug. The amendment had the same purpose as the bill: to impose harsher penalties for OWI repeat offenses.
In relation to 1989 AB242, A.Amdt-1 was a specific proposition amending a general proposition. It retained the bill's changes concerning simple OWI and, in addition, imposed longer imprisonment and longer revocation of motor vehicle operating privileges on the person now convicted of one of the 3 most serious OWI offenses (killing, maiming or injuring another person) if that person, in the past 5 years, was convicted also of other OWI offenses including simple OWI or the 3 serious OWI offenses.
A specific proposition amending a general proposition is germane; see Assembly Rule 54 (4) (a).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 13, 1989 .......... Page: 220
Point of order:
Representative Goetsch rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 27 [relating to jail and detention facility assessments] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] Existing law imposed a 1% surcharge on any fine or forfeiture imposed for state law or local ordinance violations, to be used by the county to construct, remodel, repair or improve county jails. Without changing the amount of the surcharge, the bill authorized the counties' use of revenues from this source also to construct, remodel, repair or improve juvenile "secure detention facilities".
A.Amdt-1 could be considered a "specific provision amending a general provision", allowed under A.Rule 54 (4) (a). The amendment permitted such funds to be used also for any other programs designed "to relieve jail crowding" or designed "to divert children from being held in" jails or secure detention facilities.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 26, 1989 .......... Page: 132
Point of order:
Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 95 [relating to passenger capacity of vessels eligible for alcohol beverages permits] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The bill proposed to reduce, from 100 passengers to 50 passengers, the minimum size of vessels for which the department of revenue may issue alcohol beverage permits.
A.Amdt-2 proposed to move the venue, for alcohol related crimes committed on passenger vessels, from the place of occurrence to the vessel's regular place of mooring.
A.Amdt-3 (below) was considered a matter of particularized detail. It provided that if the passenger vessel's regular place of mooring was a municipality in which bartenders are licensed, then bartenders working on that vessel have to obtain bartender's licenses from the municipality.
Point of order:
376 Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 95 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 15, 1990 .......... Page: 853
[Point of order:]
Senator Jauch raised the point of order the amendment [senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 609, relating to referenda on the issuance of bonds by school districts] is not germane.
[Note:] The substitute amendment dealt with situations, such as the removal of a hazardous substance or to comply with an order to abate fire hazards, in which school bonding need not be submitted in a referendum.
The amendment proposed to give a similar referendum exception to bonds exceeding $1,000,000 for school construction, remodeling or repair when the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
Apparently there was no general requirement that all school construction contracts be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of March 16, 1989 .......... Page: 144
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 [to Senate Bill 27, relating to reimbursement of attorneys and investigators for providing services under the state public defender program and making an appropriation] was not germane to the bill.
The Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Davis, with unanimous consent, asked that the point of order be spread upon the journal.
Senate Journal of April 12, 1989 .......... Page: 170
Ruling of the chair:
On Thursday, March 16, the Senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman, raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 27 was not germane.
The Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
The Senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, with unanimous consent, asked that the Chair's ruling be spread upon the journal.
Senate Bill 27 as originally introduced provided for an increased appropriation to support the hiring of private attorneys for the public defender program.
Senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 27 created new language to establish a mandatory level of cases to be handled by staff attorneys.
377 The amendment as it relates to the original bill would have been clearly non-germane. In this instance, the Senate had adopted senate amendments 1, 2, and 3 to the bill. These
amendments created new language within the bill to affect the internal administrative functions of the Office of the Public Defender as they relate to case assignment. The proposal before the Senate now includes the material inserted by senate amendments 1, 2, and 3. In order to be germane an amendment must be relevant to and have a direct bearing on the proposal it seeks to change. Senate amendment 4 is relevant to and has a direct bearing on the proposal as amended.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that senate amendment 4 is germane to Senate Bill 27 as amended and the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 1, 1988 .......... Page: 761
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 683 [relating to extended juvenile court jurisdiction] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (b) and (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
378 [Note:] AB 683 removed 12- and 13-year old children adjudged delinquent from extended juvenile court jurisdiction, but retained the mandatory aspect of the extension for the remaining age groups.
Under existing law, because a 12-year old can be adjudged "delinquent", juvenile court jurisdiction was extended to age 21 for children from 12 through 17 years of age who have been convicted of the crimes enumerated in s. 48.366 (1), stats., as created by 1987 WisAct 27, and was extended to age 25 for any such delinquent child convicted of first degree murder. Extended juvenile court jurisdiction was mandatory for the affected age groups.
The purpose of 1987 AB 683 was limited to removing 12- and 13-year olds from extended juvenile court jurisdiction. The nature of the bill was limited to facilitating the proposal's purpose within the mandatory framework.
The substitute amendment set up a procedural framework of petition, notice, hearing and decision - changing the character of extended juvenile court jurisdiction from mandatory to discretionary. This would have changed the nature of the bill.
When extended juvenile court jurisdiction becomes discretionary, the persons excluded from the court's extended jurisdiction comprise not only 12- and 13-year olds adjudged delinquent, but also any 14-year old, 15-year old, 16-year old or 17-year old for whom the court determines "that it is in the best interest of the person and consistent with the protection of the public" not to extend the court's jurisdiction over the person to age 21 (or 25). This changes the purpose of the bill.
In many cases, amendments creating a procedural framework for a program proposed by a bill are held germane to the bill, under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e), as "relating only to particularized details". The rule does not apply here.
The existing mandatory program of extended juvenile court jurisdiction did not need a procedural framework. The court retained jurisdiction to age 21 (or 25) whenever the criteria set forth in the statute applied.
The procedural framework offered in the substitute amendment was necessary only when the application of extended juvenile court jurisdiction was changed from mandatory to discretionary. Consequently, this procedural framework could not be considered germane particularized detail, but constituted a substantial expansion of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1988 .......... Page: 810
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Tesmer on Tuesday, March 1 that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 683 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1987 .......... Page: 204
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 34 [relating to designating the ice age national scenic trail as a state scenic trail and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill and A.Sub.Amdt.1 already provided for "ski trails" in conjunction with the ice age national scenic trail.
A.Amdt.5, by adding "bridle trails", added particularized detail rather than providing for a substantial expansion of the proposal's scope.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1987 .......... Page: 197
Point of order:
Representative Tregoning rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to Senate Bill 166 [relating to establishing a speed limit of 65 miles per hour for rural interstate highways] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill increased the speed limit from 55 mph tp 65 mph.
A.Amdt.8 directed the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) to report to the legislature on the breaking and stopping capacities (of vehicles over 80,000 lbs) at speeds of 55 mph to 75 mph in one-mile increments. An amendment providing for a study of the bill's effect does not expand the scope, but adds germane "particularized detail".
The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 3, 1987 .......... Page: 53
Point of order:
379 Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 50 [relating to the council on tourism and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill appropriated $2,000,000 to increase funding for tourism promotion. The money was to be administered by the Secretary of Development with advice from the Council on Tourism.
A.Amdt.9 proposed to earmark, of the amount appropriated, $100,000 to promote Wisconsin's historic sites, as jointly determined by the Secretary of Development and the director of the State Historical Society.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken and the amendment germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e).
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1988 .......... Page: 770
