Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 982
[Ruling on the point of order:]
The speaker ruled well taken the points of order on the germaneness of assembly amendments 2 and 14 [?] to Senate Bill 663.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 983
[Ruling on the point of order:]
The speaker ruled the point of order on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 984
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 24 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 20, 1983 .......... Page: 481
Point of order:
Representative D. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 260 [relating to official identification cards, changing the legal drinking age, establishing a curfew and creating and changing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
456 [Note:] It is generally held that an amendment "limiting the scope of the proposal" is germane [see A.Rule 54 (4) (c)], but it is also true that an amendment is not germane if it "would totally alter the nature of the proposal" [A.Rule 54 (1)]. The scope and nature of a proposal must determine which rule governs in the specific case. Assembly Bill 260 of 1983 was not only a bill to change the legal drinking age, but also a bill dealing with identification card violations and with an early morning driving curfew for persons under 18 years of age.
If the several subjects are so closely related to the drinking age question that the inclusion of other similar subjects or the deletion of any of the existing subjects - other than the nucleus subject of raising the drinking age - will not totally alter the nature of the proposal, then amendments to include [A.Rule 54 (4) (e)] or delete [A.Rule 54 (4) (c)] such subjects will be germane.
On the other hand, if the peripheral subjects are only vaguely related to the core subject of raising the drinking age, then any amendment to delete one of those subjects might "totally alter the nature of the proposal" [A.Rule 54 (1)] and therefore be not germane.
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 286
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to senate amendment 1 [compiled amendment, 122 items] to assembly amendment 4 [compiled amendment, 486 items] to Senate Bill 83 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (a) and (f).
[Note:] A.Amdt.5 did not propose to amend any of the issues covered by SA-1 to AA-4 to SB 83; rather, its first item attempted to reach the bill itself, and its 2nd item attempted to add a 6/30/85 sunset for any permanent tax increases contained in AA-4.
Similarly, A.Amdt.6 to SA-1 to AA-4 to SB 83 only attempted to reach the bill itself.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (a) and (f).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 809
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] offered by Senators Chilsen, Hanaway, Theno, Lorman, Davis, Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although the bill itself changed the state homestead tax credit formula, it did not change the definition of "income" which is used as one part of that formula.
S.Amdt.2 attempted to exclude the first $15,000 of farmland depreciation from that "income" definition.
S.Amdt.7 (below) attempted the same change for the first $20,000.
457 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen 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 [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 810
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although 1983 SB 663 addressed a large number of issues, each was narrowly drafted and specifically reflected in the proposal's title.
S.Amdt.5 (changing the dates of property tax relief payments) and S.Amdt.4 (below; increasing the state property tax credit payment) each attempted to add new issues to the proposal.
The chair ruled the point of order 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? The ayes and
noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-9]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663?
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senators Chilsen and Lorge.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the ruling of the chair be written and printed in the senate journal. Senator Cullen objected.
458 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 [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 706
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] was not germane.
[Note:] 1983 SB 663 was a multi-issue bill addressing the following topics: "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".
Despite the large number of topics, the bill had been narrowly drafted and each topic was precisely reflected in the bill title. Consequently, S.Sub.2 and the 4 amendments challenged below each related to a "different subject" - i.e. a subject not covered by the original bill - in violation of S.Rules 50 (1) and (7).
S.Sub.2 was limited to only 4 topics, and the treatment was in each case different from the original bill. The substitute dealt with: "the corporate surtax, the individual surtax, the gift tax and inheritance tax exemptions for class A distributees, and the rates for the individual income tax".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator McCallum appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?
By request of Senator McCallum, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to appeal the ruling of the chair.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 707
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 11 [accelerated distribution of shared revenues] offered by Senators Engeleiter, Harsdorf, Chilsen, Ellis, Theno, Lorman, Davis and Lasee.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 11?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 11 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 708
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 14 [exempting raffle tickets from sales tax] offered by Senators Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
459 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 14?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 14 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 709
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 19 [UW faculty salaries] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 19?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 19 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 20 [increasing the state property tax credit] offered by Senators Harsdorf, Ellis, Engeleiter, Davis and Theno.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 20?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 20 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 16, 1981 .......... Page: 871
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 18 [compiled amendment, 187 items] to senate amendment 125 [compiled amendment, 479 items] to Assembly Bill 66 [budget bill] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] because it contains new provisions not related to any of the provisions of senate amendment 125 to Assembly Bill 66.
