The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be laid on the table? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-47, noes-51.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of March 22, 1984 .......... Page: 1037
[Tabling motion, repetition of:]
Representative Johnson moved that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663 [relating to 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] be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order because that motion had been made and lost on Tuesday, March 20.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that, because significant intervening business had taken place since that time, the motion was in order. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1984 .......... Page: 788
[Motion to withdraw from standing committee:]
Representative Rogers moved that Assembly Rule 15 (1) and (5) be suspended and that Assembly Bill 148 [relating to prohibiting abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the pregnant woman and requiring the reporting of these abortions] be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time.
Representative Loftus moved that the motion be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Rogers rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 74 (3) because the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 148, which had not been in the Joint Committee on Finance for 21 calendar days, required a suspension of the rules.
Representative Loftus withdrew his motion to table. [Recess to 3:15 p.m.]
The assembly reconvened. Speaker pro tempore Clarenbach in the chair.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 148 be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 23, 1982 .......... Page: 2348
[Background: while disposition of A.Amdt.8 to A.Sub.2 to AB 452 remained undecided, Rep. Thompson (by unanimous consent) withdrew his pending motion to table AB 452 and then moved indefinite postponement of AB 452.]
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to
Assembly Bill 452 [relating to employment relations in higher education and making an appropriation] was pending.
[Note:] Under A.Rule 65 (2), tabling has a higher priority than amending but amending has a higher priority than indefinite postponement.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 13, 1981 .......... Page: 1188
[Background: Representative Thompson moved that senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 [relating to special inspection warrants] be laid on the table.]
Point of order:
Representative Plewa rose to the point of order that a motion to table a senate amendment [to an assembly bill] was not in order. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1982 .......... Page: 2817
Representative Plewa asked unanimous consent to withdraw the point of order he raised on Assembly Bill 169 on October 13, 1981. Granted.
[Note:] When the business on a proposal is limited to consideration of amendments from the other house, allowing such amendments to be tabled without tabling the bill itself fails to determine a status for the bill.
As soon as the point of order was withdrawn, Rep. Loftus obtained unanimous consent to place the entire bill on the table.
Two weeks later, the bill was taken from the table and special ordered. Both amendments were concurred in (Chap. 318, Laws of 1981).
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1981 .......... Page: 444
[Background:]
Assembly Bill 235, "relating to sexual activity between consenting adults and revising penalties", was indefinitely postponed on 4/28/81, A.Jour. p. 405, and Rep. Tesmer entered the motion to reconsider that vote on 4/30/81, A.Jour., p. 419. When reconsideration came up on 5/5/81, Rep. Loftus asked unanimous consent (Rep. Shabaz objected) and then moved to table the bill.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Rule 74 (2) prohibited a motion to table Assembly Bill 235 at this time because the reconsideration question pending before the assembly was procedural. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
622 [Note:] On 5/7/81, A.Jour. p. 466, Rep. Tesmer was given unanimous consent to withdraw her reconsideration motion on AB 235.
Unanimous consent had the effect of suspending A.Rule 73 (7), which prohibits withdrawing a motion for reconsideration when the time for making the motion has expired.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 26, 1982 .......... Page: 2149
Point of order:
Senator Cullen moved that the question to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor Senate Bill 3, (April 1982) Special Session [relating senate and assembly districts and matters pertaining to the decennial legislative redistricting] be laid on the table.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion to table Senate Bill 3, (April 1982) Special Session was not proper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 28, 1982 .......... Page: 2181
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On May 26 Senator Chilsen, Senator from the 29th, raised a point of order that a motion to table Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session, was not proper.
It is the opinion of the chair that Senate Rule 41 (2) is very explicit in covering this situation. The rule states that "questions of reconsideration, concurrence in amendments of the other house or executive vetoes may be placed on the table but shall in no case be referred to any committee."
Therefore, the point of order is not well taken.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session be laid on the table?
By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to lay Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session on the table.
The question was: Shall the bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor? [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Cullen moved that Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-12.] So the motion prevailed.
Senate Journal of March 31, 1982 .......... Page: 1914
Point of order:
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 806 be withdrawn from committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources and taken up at this time?
Senator Bablitch moved that the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 806 from committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources and taken up at this time be laid on the table.
Senator Goyke raised the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules is not subject to motion to table. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1982 .......... Page: 1972
Point of order:
623 Senator Opitz raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 7 (2) the chair was required to rule on the Point of Order raised March 31, 1982. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling given.]
Senate Journal of March 23, 1982 .......... Page: 1790
Point of order:
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 41 the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 621 [relating to prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the mother and regulating other abortions in public hospitals, providing aid to women who suffer from certain diseases exacerbated by pregnancy or delivery, providing care for certain diseases of children and making an appropriation] from committee on Human Services and refer to committee on Senate Organization was not properly before us at this time.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
A similar point of order was raised on March 25, 1976 on Assembly Bill 421. On page 2165 of the Journal of the Senate March 25, 1976, the ruling reads: "As it relates to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 421, the chair 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."
On page 540 of the Journal of the Senate March 16, 1971, Senator from the 14th, Senator Lorge, proposed this rule in Senate Resolution 13. The analysis reads: "This proposal would prevent a motion to recall a bill from committee from taking effect prior to hearing if such has been scheduled".
Members have raised the question of the definition of a week. The chair has reviewed the rules and has found no definition of a week by our rules; however, the Index to the Senate Rules and Senate Rule 31 (4) states that Webster's New International Dictionary will be the standard for language usage. Webster's New International Dictionary defines a week as: "any 7 consecutive days."
A hearing is scheduled on the matter for Monday, March 29, 1982. Therefore, based on past precedent and the definition of a week, it is the opinion of the chair that in accordance with Senate Rule 41 (a) the bill cannot be withdrawn at this time and the point of order raised by the Senator of the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken.
Senator Lorge appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?
[Tabling of appeal:]
Senator Bablitch moved that the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-15.] So the motion prevailed.
Senate Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1099
Point of order:
Senator Opitz asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 45 [relating to exempting interspousal transfers from inheritance taxes] be withdrawn from the committee on State and Local Affairs and Taxation and referred to committee on Senate Organization.
624 Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 45 from committee is subject to motion to table. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 2, 1982 .......... Page: 1400
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Friday, October 30, 1981 Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that a motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 45 from committee is subject to a motion to table.
The chair has reviewed this matter with great care. At first it would appear that a motion to withdraw is not subject to a motion to table. The chair has reviewed the Senate Journals back through the 1969 legislative session. On several occasions, by unanimous consent, and by a majority vote motions to
withdraw have been placed on the table. It would appear that the Senate has established this precedent under several presiding officers, although a ruling has never been issued.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that a motion to withdraw is subject to tabling and the point of order raised by the senator from the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 45 from committee on State and Local Affairs and Taxation and refer to committee on Senate Organization was laid on the table.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2737
[Background:] Representative Ferrall moved that the rules be suspended and that assembly amendments 24 through 57 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 [relating to energy resources, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing penalties] be laid on the table.
Point of order:
