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to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 421, the chair ruled that pursuant to Senate Rule 41, a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing has already been scheduled.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the definition of a week, it is the opinion of the chair that in accordance with Senate Rule 41 (a) the bill cannot be withdrawn at this time and the point of order raised by the Senator of the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken.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:
Representative Shabaz moved that Senate Bill 500 be laid on the table. ( Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion to table Senate Bill 500 was not in order under Assembly Rule 65 because a motion to suspend the rules was pending.
The chair [Rep. Lee] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 2423
[Background:] Representative Merkt moved that Assembly Joint Resolution 32 [making an application to the Congress of the United States pursuant to article V of the constitution of the United States, for a convention proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States to protect the life of all human beings, including unborn children at every stage of their biological development] be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Social Services.
Representative Loftus moved that the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be laid on the table.
625 The question was: Shall the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be laid on the table? Motion carried.
[Note:] Upon completion of the 8th order (motions) of business, the first bill on the calendar of Monday, March 3, 1980, was called up: Senate Bill 62, relating to adding 2 dental hygienists to the dentistry examining board.
Returning to the 8th order from the 11th order (3rd reading of senate of proposals) for further consideration of the motion required a rules suspension.
Representative Shabaz moved that the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be taken from the table.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that the motion required a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be taken from the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-51, noes-47.] Motion failed [2/3 vote required].
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 2424
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 32 was before the assembly because the previous motion did not require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because the assembly was no longer on the eighth order of business.
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2368
[Repetitive motion to table:]
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 937 [relating to the prohibition of the sale, distribution or use of 2, 4, 5-T and silvex and providing penalties] be laid on the table. Representative Shabaz objected.
Representative Loftus moved that Assembly Bill 937 be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Norquist rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order because there had been no intervening business.
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. Granted.
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2367
[Motion to table repeated without intervening business:]
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 937 [relating to the prohibition of the sale, distribution or use of 2, 4, 5-T and silvex and providing penalties] be laid on the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-35, noes-60.] Motion failed.
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 937 needed to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
626 Representative Loftus moved that Assembly Bill 937 be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order because there had been no intervening business.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 1713
[Motion to take from table:]
Representative Shabaz moved that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 be taken from the table.
Representative McClain rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order under Assembly Rule 69 (1) [dilatory motion] and Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Note:] On page 1705, the assembly had refused (49 to 50) Rep. Hauke's motion to place A.Amdt.5 after A.Amdt.6, and then approved (50 to 49) Rep. McClain's motion to place A.Amdt.5 on the table.
The express purpose of the motion to table, as stated in A.Rule 74, is to dispose of a matter only "temporarily". The motion does not decide an issue with finality.
Rather, "a tabled matter may be taken from the table at any time by order of the assembly".
The chair [Rep. Gerlach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 24, 1979 .......... Page: 419
[Repetitive tabling motions:]
Representative Dorff moved that Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-42, noes-53.] Motion failed.
Representative Barczak moved that Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table.
Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 16 be referred to the committee on Local Affairs. Representative Rutkowski objected.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled Representative Barczak's motion for tabling out of order under Assembly Rule 69 (2).
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 21, 1978 .......... Page: 1768
[Point of order:]
627 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]. 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.
