Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 853
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 79 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1979 legislature, and making appropriations].
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered the order of the day. Senator Krueger objected.
Senator Krueger asked unanimous consent that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Krueger moved that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar.
The question was: Shall Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-21.] So the motion did not prevail.
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Bablitch moved that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day.
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 854
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that it would take a two-thirds vote to consider the Item Vetoes presented to the Chief Clerk as the order of the day.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Senate Rules are silent on the order in which partial vetoes of a bill are to be considered. However, Senate Rule 47 (4) does state that the Senate by majority vote may direct the consideration of amendments. It is the chair's opinion that partial vetoes may be treated as amendments and the Senate may by majority vote direct the order of consideration.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Bidwell appealed the ruling of the chair. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] More than a majority of the Senate having voted in the affirmative the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.
The question was: Shall consideration of the Item Vetoes as presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day? The motion prevailed.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1977 .......... Page: 2227
[Background]:
556 Representative McClain moved that Assembly Bill 991 [relating to the standard deduction and filing requirements under the personal income tax] be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26. The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-41, noes-55.] Motion failed.
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26. [Call of the assembly.]
Point of order:
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 June 29, 1977 .......... Page: 1695
[Special order of business:]
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the hour of 10:00 A.M. had arrived and the assembly had before it a special order of business, Senate Bill 91.
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.
[Note:] [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.]
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 25, 1976 .......... Page: 2163
[Point of order:]
Senator Murphy moved that Assembly Bill 421 be made a special order of business at 10:00 A.M. on Friday.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing had already been scheduled. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
557Senate Journal of March 25, 1976 .......... Page: 2165 Ruling of the chair:
As it relates to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 421, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that pursuant to Senate Rule 41 a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing has already been scheduled. Any attempt to do so would require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 9, 1974 .......... Page: 71
Senator Johnson moved that the question of merger implementation be made the first order of business on the calendar for the 1975 legislative session.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that this legislature could not determine the business of the 1975 session.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of May 2, 1974 .......... Page: 32
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson moved that Assembly Bill 2, Special Session, be made a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, May 7.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the motion would require a two-thirds vote, as there was no further business before the senate and it would be adjourned, if the motion prevailed. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 2, 1974 .......... Page: 34
[Ruling of the chair:]
As it relates to Assembly Bill 2, (Spring 1974) Special Session, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled a two-thirds vote would be required to advance a special order to a future date and effectively leave the senate with no further business.
Senate Journal of February 26, 1974 .......... Page: 2279
["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
