Representative Wahner asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion to suspend the rules to expunge the voice vote on passage of Assembly Bill 100. Granted.
Representative Shabaz moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 100 was passed. Entered.
Representative Ferrall moved that the rules be suspended and the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 100 was passed be taken up at this time.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 100 was passed be taken up at this time?
The roll was taken.
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1977 .......... Page: 311
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that a motion for reconsideration of the vote by which the assembly failed to recede from its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 63 was in order pursuant to Assembly Rule 72.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that a motion to recede under Joint Rule 3 is in effect a motion to reconsider. Therefore, a motion to reconsider a motion to recede would be the equivalent of reconsidering a motion to reconsider. Since this is not in order under Assembly Rule 72 (3), the speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 30, 1978 .......... Page: 2223
[Point of order:]
Senator Dorman moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 518 be returned to the amendable stage.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 518 be returned to the amendable stage? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-10.] More than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the rules were suspended.
Senator Dorman moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 1 was adopted.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the reconsideration motion is not timely.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of February 21, 1978 .......... Page: 1768
[Point of order:]
Senator Flynn moved reconsideration of the vote by which the Senate refused to concur in Assembly Bill 814 [relating to restrictions on volume discounts to retailers from wholesalers of malt beverages and liquors and providing a penalty].
510 Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. Senator Sensenbrenner objected.
Senator Bablitch moved to table the reconsideration motion and raised a point of order relative to the reconsideration procedure. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 1893
On Tuesday, February 21, 1978, the Senate failed to concur in Assembly Bill 814. At the conclusion of the day's session Senator Flynn moved to reconsider that vote. Senator Bablitch moved to table the reconsideration motion and raised a point of order relative to Senate rules and procedure on motions for reconsideration.
Senate Rule 67 (4) states: "A motion to reconsider shall be put immediately unless it is laid over to a future time by majority vote." Senate Rule 67 (1) states: "The motion for reconsideration may be laid on the table without debate."
These rules set forth the three basic procedural alternatives available once a motion for reconsideration has been made. Each can be decided by majority vote any time after pending business or motions of higher precedence are disposed of.
1. Put the question immediately and vote the motion up or down pursuant to Senate Rule 67 (4). 2. Move to lay the reconsideration motion over to a future time (later on that day's calendar or to a future calendar) pursuant to Senate Rule 67 (4).
3. Move to lay the reconsideration motion on the table pursuant to Senate Rule 67 (1). This motion, if successful, would have the effect of disposing of the reconsideration motion temporarily and the motion could be taken from the table at any time by majority vote.
Mason's Manual, sec. 472 (2) states that "when a motion to reconsider is laid on the table or postponed definitely, the question to be reconsidered and all adhering questions go with it." Senate Rule 41 (2) clearly prohibits referring a motion to reconsider to committee.
Despite the clarity of our rules, there is sometimes uncertainty about proper reconsideration procedure. There are also occasional questions about various motions which may be offered during, or following, the reconsideration process.
The chair would like to take this opportunity to offer a clarification of reconsideration procedure.
First, it is always helpful to remember that any kind of procedural strategy is allowed if the rules are suspended. Sometimes action which is obviously improper under the rules is questioned, but turns out to have been taken only as the result of a successful unanimous consent request.
A motion to reconsider is unusual in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration. Making a motion to reconsider is accorded a high priority by Senate Rule 67 (3) which states that "the motion for reconsideration .... shall be received under any order of business," and Mason's Manual sec. 92 (3) which lists the making of a reconsideration motion as one of the few circumstances under which a member may interrupt a speaker. Consideration of a motion to reconsider however, must wait until pending business or motions of higher precedence are disposed of.
Mason's Manual sec. 469 (3) states that "when reconsideration is moved while another subject is before the house, it cannot interrupt the pending business" .... Mason's sec. 465, suggests the following procedure when a motion to reconsider is made while other business is before the house: ".... the presiding officer repeats the motion (to reconsider) and it is recorded in the minutes, and the house proceeds to the business which was interrupted by the motion." Mason's sec. 469 (3) states that "as soon as (the pending) business has been disposed of, the reconsideration may be called up" ....
511 Consideration of a motion to reconsider must also wait until motions of higher precedence are disposed of. Unfortunately our Senate rules do not specify which motions have a higher precedence. Sec. 469 (1) of Mason's Manual however, states that "consideration (of motions to reconsider) has only the rank of the motion to be reconsidered." Our rules do specify that "reconsideration of amendments .... shall have the same priority as to order of action as to amend under rule 63." (Senate Rule 67[6]).
When consideration of the motion to reconsider does come before the body, either "immediately", at the future time to which it is laid over, or when it is taken off the table, Senate Rule 67 (1) states that "the motion for reconsideration shall be subject to all rules governing debate as apply to the question which it is moved to reconsider."
If a motion to reconsider is rejected, the original decision of the body is sustained. Senate Rule 67 (8) states that "such motion having been put and lost shall not be renewed." Mason's Manual sec. 457 (2) states that "to prevent
abuse of the motion to reconsider, the same question cannot be reconsidered a second time."
If the motion to reconsider is adopted however, the vote on the question which has been reconsidered "is canceled as completely as though it had never been taken," (Mason's sec. 467[1]) and "the question immediately recurs upon the question reconsidered." (Mason's sec. 467[3]).
At this point the reconsidered question can be put, or other motions which are proper may be offered.
When the question reconsidered is passage or concurrence of a bill, a motion frequently offered at this point is reference to committee or tabling of the bill. Such motions are proper.
If the bill is referred to a standing committee or tabled (which has the effect of referring the bill to the committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 65[2]) then the bill is also automatically returned to the 2nd reading or amendable stage.
When the bill is reported back out of committee the question is "shall the bill be ordered to a third reading," not "shall the bill pass" or "shall the bill be concurred in."
Obviously this ruling does not cover all procedural alternatives which are proper in every case of reconsideration. Some of the more typical are mentioned however, and it is hoped that the result is a clearer understanding of proper reconsideration procedure.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of June 30, 1977 .......... Page: 975
[Display of roll call (on page 962) omitted: ayes-20; noes-13. Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the senate refused to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor the vetoed part of the bill: Senate Bill 77, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1977 legislature, and making appropriations.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Petri moved that the rules be suspended and the vote on item V-A, section 1610h be reconsidered.
512 [Note:] Apparently, there was no ruling on the validity of the motion to reconsider the vote on the partial veto. Reconsideration of vetoes is expressly prohibited by 1977 Senate Rule 67 (7):
.... "Action on executive vetoes .... shall in no case be subject to a motion for reconsideration".
However, in the printed history of 1977 SB 77 (p. 456), the motion was entered as a "Motion to expunge the record and reconsider the vote on Item V-A".
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not proper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 24, 1976 .......... Page: 3598
[Special order of business:]
The question was: Shall the vote by which Assembly Bill 605 [relating to revision of municipal employment collective bargaining impasse resolution procedures, providing for final and binding arbitration, authorizing a limited right to strike, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] was ordered to a third reading be reconsidered? Motion carried.
Assembly amendment 35 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 offered by Representatives Looby and Johnson.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 35 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 be adopted? Motion carried.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 34 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 was adopted cannot be taken up until Thursday, March 25 since the motion was made on Tuesday, March 23 and must lay over for two legislative days under Assembly Rule 74.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 34 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 was adopted be withdrawn. Granted.
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1976 .......... Page: 2534
Point of order:
Representative Wahner moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 422 [relating to authorizing payment for psychological treatment under medical assistance, health insurance and cooperative sickness care programs and providing that psychologists' services may be performed without referral and supervision by a physician] be given a third reading.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 422 be given a third reading?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-49, noes-42.] Motion failed.
Representative Jackamonis moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 422 was ordered to a third reading. Entered.
513 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of Assembly Bill 422 was not timely because a roll call had been taken on suspension of the rules to give the bill a third reading.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1975 .......... Page: 1973
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration [of the vote on bill passage] was not in order because a vote on suspension of the rules to message Assembly Bill 277 constituted intervening business under Assembly Rule 74.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1975 .......... Page: 1265
Point of order:
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 321 be ordered engrossed and read a third time? Motion carried.
Representative Wahner asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 321 be given a third reading. Representative Shabaz objected.
Representative Shabaz moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 321 was ordered to a third reading. Entered.
Representative Wahner moved that the rules be suspended and that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 321 was ordered to a third reading be taken up at this time.
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration offered by Representative Shabaz was not in order at this time because there had been intervening business.
The chair ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly Journal of June 11, 1975 .......... Page: 1112
Point of order:
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Joint Resolution 44 was adopted which was entered on June 10, 1975 by Representative Dueholm was not in order.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken because adoption of the joint resolution by the assembly did not constitute final action and, therefore, the joint resolution had not taken effect.
Assembly Journal of June 11, 1975 .......... Page: 1112
Point of order:
514 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Resolution 22 [directing the assembly committee on tourism to study the impact on recreational areas of power equalization] was adopted which was entered on June 10, 1975 by Representative Ferrall was not in order. Representative Shabaz cited the ruling of the chair on 1971 Assembly Resolution 21 (1971 Assembly Journal, page 1000). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling given. New motion entered (p. 1113) by Representative Johnson. That motion passed on September 10, 1975 (p. 1760) and the resolution was rejected 49 to 48. The issue was settled in the 1979 adoption of the assembly rules (A.Res. 7) which created the following rule:
"The entering of a motion for reconsideration does not impair the effectiveness of any adopted resolution relating to the officers, members, procedures or organization of the assembly."
