["Zoom" (or "select") list of special orders; time limit on debate:]
By request of Senators Johnson and Risser, pursuant to senate rule 76, the following schedule and time limit on debate were entered:
"Each member of the Senate shall submit a bill or resolution which is presently on the Senate Table or Senate Calendar to the Chief Clerk by 4:00 P.M. today (Tuesday, February 26th). A special order list shall be created by the Chief Clerk from these measures in the order of Seniority to start Wednesday morning, February 27th.
"The 5 minute rule per person per issue and a 40 minute rule per measure shall apply to all matters on this special order list and any other matters taken up this week in the Senate."
Senate Journal of March 19, 1974 .......... Page: 2485
[Point of order:]
Senator M. Swan moved that Assembly Bill 934 be withdrawn from the committee on Industry, Labor, Taxation and Banking and laid on the table.
558 Senator Knowles raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 41 a two-thirds vote would be required.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator M. Swan raised the point of order that senate rule 76 and the agreement made under that rule would supersede senate rule 41. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of March 19, 1974 .......... Page: 2487
As it relates to the point of order raised earlier by Senator M. Swan on Assembly Bill 934, the chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Point of order:]
Senator Bidwell raised the point of order that Senate Bill 43 should now be before the senate body.
Senator Whittow raised the point of order that Senate Bill 43 must lay over one more legislative day. The chair took the points of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 19, 1974 .......... Page: 2488
As it relates to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 934 the chair submitted the question to the senate.
The question was: Does Assembly Bill 934 require a two-thirds vote to withdraw from committee pursuant to senate rule 41, or does senate rule 76 take precedence and is only a majority vote required?
Senator Steinhilber moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-29, absent-3, with leave-1; intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of March 19, 1974 .......... Page: 2492
[Point of order:]
On the point of order raised by Senator M. Swan, the chair submitted the question to the senate.
The question was: As it relates to Assembly Bill 934, does the bill require a two-thirds vote or only a majority vote to withdraw from committee?
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that once having taken the point of order under advisement on Assembly Bill 934 he could not then place the question before the senate for a decision until two legislative days had elapsed.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that the senate could not by a majority vote suspend the rules and do by indirection what cannot be done by direction.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Knowles appealed the ruling of the chair.
The question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-15.] So the ruling of the chair was sustained.
Senate Journal of March 19, 1974 .......... Page: 2493
Senator Johnson moved that the agreement under senate rule 76 be rescinded. The chair ruled the motion out of order. Senator Johnson appealed the ruling of the chair.
Senate Journal of March 20, 1974 .......... Page: 2500
Senator M. Swan moved that Assembly Bill 934 be withdrawn from the committee on Industry, Labor, Taxation and Banking and laid on the table.
559 Senator Knowles raised the point of order that the motion required a two-thirds vote.
The chair ruled that Senate Bill 280 was the next order of business before the senate pursuant to senate rule 17 (3).
Senator M. Swan appealed the ruling of the chair. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16.] So the ruling of the chair was not sustained. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of March 20, 1974 .......... Page: 2502
The question was: Does senate rule 76 take precedence over senate rule 41 and is only a majority required to withdraw Assembly Bill 934 from committee? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16, lieutenant governor voted "aye" to break tie.]
So senate rule 76 takes precedence and only a majority vote is required to withdraw from committee.
Senator M. Swan moved that Assembly Bill 934 be withdrawn from the committee on Industry, Labor, Taxation and Banking and laid on the table.
Senator Knowles asked for a division of the question.
The chair ruled a division of the question was not in order.
Senator Knowles appealed the ruling of the chair. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of March 20, 1974 .......... Page: 2503
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the chair could not break the tie vote on the previous question, as the chair originally submitted the question to the body because it was in doubt.
The chair put the question of the previous appeal of the ruling of the chair to the senate.
As it relates to the ruling that a division of the question was not in order, the question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16, lieutenant governor voted "aye" to break tie.]
So the ruling of the chair was sustained.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 934 be withdrawn from the committee on Industry, Labor, Taxation and Banking and laid on the table. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16, lieutenant governor voted "aye" to break tie.]
So the motion prevailed. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of March 20, 1974 .......... Page: 2504
Senator McKenna moved that Senate Bill 934 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time.
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that this required a suspension of the rules.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator J. D. Swan appealed the ruling of the chair. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-15, noes-17.] So the ruling of the chair was not sustained.
Senate Journal of February 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2329
[Point of order:]
560 Senator Whittow raised the point of order that the agreement under senate rule 76 was amendable. ( The chair ruled the point of order well taken, but any amendment that would
advance a bill ordinarily requiring a two-thirds vote, would itself require a two-thirds vote to adopt.
Senate Journal of March 27, 1974 .......... Page: 2604
[Point of order:]
Senator M. Swan raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 934 was already on the select list and was presently before the senate. This would negate the requirement for a motion to take from the table. ( The chair ruled the point of order well taken as this was the precedent set on Senate Bill 261 on page 2505 of the senate journal.
Special session: conduct of
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1990 .......... Page: 818
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to place Assembly Bill 200 [relating to prohibiting bovine growth hormone] after Senate Bill 344 would need a two-thirds vote.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] A request to delay consideration of one proposal from its place on the calendar to a later position on the same calendar, following the consideration of a specific other proposal, is a motion to postpone, to be decided by majority vote.
In special or extraordinary session, A.Rule 93 (5) prohibits motions "to postpone a proposal to a day or time certain"; consequently, in special or extraordinary session placing consideration of one proposal after consideration of another requires unanimous consent or a two-thirds vote.
Generally, and whether or not there is a written rule, advancing the consideration of a proposal ahead of its status under the rules requires a two-thirds vote, but delaying consideration to a later time, or refusing to consider, can be done by majority vote.
Ruling of the chair [p. 823]:
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Welch that since the motion to place a bill after another bill was not specifically listed in the Assembly Rules as a proper motion it would take a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 22, 1986 .......... Page: 1114-15
Point of order:
561 Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 13, May 1986 Spec. Sess., [relating to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, drugs or both, administrative and court-ordered revocation of operating privileges and chemical tests for intoxication, making an appropriation and granting rule-making authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope] and Assembly Rule 93 (1) [scope of session call exceeded].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
[Note:] The bill provided for administrative or court-ordered driver's license revocation for drunk driving.
A.Amdt.5 increased, by $650,000, the state appropriation to the public defender board for investigators and private bar attorneys to handle some of the anticipated workload.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order on assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 13, May 1986 Spec. Sess., not well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 4, 1982 .......... Page: 3430
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 1, Second April 1982 Special Session, [relating to establishing a special order of business for Tuesday, May 4, 1982] was not properly before the assembly because it did not comply with Assembly Rule 33 (4) and (6) [resolution for special order of business].
[Note:] A special session operates under accelerated procedures codified in A.Rule 93. Under A.Rule 93 (4), in special session any measure referred to a calendar may be taken up immediately by majority vote.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Resolution 1 was introduced under Assembly Rule 93 and did not need to comply with the requirements of Assembly Rule 33.
Assembly Journal of November 4, 1981 .......... Page: 1709
Point of order:
Representative Looby rose to the point of order that members of the Legislature were not properly notified of the calling of a special session.
The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [It appears that no ruling was given.]
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
