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to protect the life of all human beings, including unborn children at every stage of their biological development] be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Social Services.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.
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" ....
628 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
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1976 .......... Page: 3398
[Background:]
Representative McClain moved rejection of assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 [relating to eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits].
Representative Sicula moved that assembly substitute amendment 1 and all of its amendments be laid on the table.
Representative Shabaz requested a division of the question on each amendment to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the request out of order.
629 Representative Sicula asked unanimous consent that assembly amendments 1 - 6 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 be withdrawn and returned to the authors. Representative Jackamonis objected.
Representative Kedrowski moved that the rules be suspended and that assembly amendments 1 - 6 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 be withdrawn and returned to the authors.
Representative Kedrowski withdrew his motion.
Point of order:
Representative Azim rose to the point of order that the motion to table assembly substitute amendment 1 and all of its amendments was not proper.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 1 and all of its amendments be laid on the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-35, noes-62.] Motion failed.
