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.
Assembly Journal of April 10, 1975 .......... Page: 487
Point of order:
Representative Hanson moved that the rules be suspended and that assembly amendments 5 to 41 [to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 48; relating to regulation of buying clubs or plans and providing penalties] be laid on the table.
Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order under Assembly Rule 72.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 4, 1975 .......... Page: 218
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen moved that the rules be suspended and Senate Joint Resolution 14 be withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and considered for action at this time.
Senator Whittow asked unanimous consent that the motion to withdraw Senate Joint Resolution 14 from committee be laid on the table. Senator Chilsen objected.
Senator Whittow moved that the motion to withdraw Senate Joint Resolution 14 from committee be laid on the table.
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that a motion to suspend rules takes precedence over a motion to table and therefore a move to table would be out of order. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 5, 1975 .......... Page: 231
As it relates to the point of order raised by Senator Knowles on February 4, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken as a motion to suspend rules may not have any subsidiary motions appended to it, or come before it. Therefore, pursuant to Mason's Manual Section 238 Paragraph 6, a motion to table a suspension of the rules would be out of order.
630Senate Journal of January 22, 1975 .......... Page: 140
[Point of order:]
Senator Murphy moved that Senate Resolution 3 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the senate was not under the proper order of business to receive motions.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 65 a motion to take from the table is in order at any time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 4, 1975 .......... Page: 216
On Wednesday, January 22, 1975, during the 10th order of business the Senator from the 33rd made a motion that Senate Resolution 3 be taken from the table.
The chair ruled that motion out of order ruling that said motion should be appropriately made under the eighth order of business.
Just prior to adjournment on said day the Senator from the 10th rose to a point of order on the chair's ruling citing Senate Rule 65.
(1) A motion to lay on the table shall only have the effect of disposing of the matter temporarily and it may be taken from the table at any time by order of the Senate.
The question is simply, can a bill or resolution be taken from the table at any time?
Senate Rule 65 when read in its entirety furnished the guidance needed for the decision on this appeal.
(2) A motion to lay a bill or resolution on the table shall, if approved, have the effect of returning the matter to the committee on senate organization.
(3) A motion to remove a bill or resolution from the table shall, if approved, have the effect of withdrawing the matter from the committee on senate organization and placing it on the calendar.
Under the Senate Rule 65 (2) a motion to table a bill or resolution is not really a motion to table in the traditional sense but actually is a motion with the effect of "returning the matter to the committee on senate organization." [See also Senate Rule 63 (1)(f)].
Under Senate Rule 65 (3) a motion to remove a bill or resolution from the table is not really a motion to remove from the table in the traditional sense, but actually a motion with the effect of "withdrawing the matter from the committee on senate organization and placing it on the calendar."
The "and it may be taken from the table at any time" language of Senate Rule 65 (1), because of the explicit language in (2) and (3) becomes inoperative when a tabling motion involves "placing" or "taking" a bill or resolution from the table.
A motion to take a bill or resolution from committee or remove a bill or resolution from the table cannot be made at any time but must be made under the appropriate order of business pursuant to the rules.
The point of order is not well taken.
Respectfully submitted
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER
Lieutenant Governor
Senate Journal of March 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2628
[Point of order:]
[Assembly Bill 1511, "relating to a tax on copper mining".] Read first time and laid on the table.
Senator Keppler raised the point of order that the chair must refer the assembly bills on the message to some committee.
The chair referred the bill to the committee on Natural Resources.
Senate Journal of February 21, 1974 .......... Page: 2253
[Withdraw and table as alternative to withdraw and refer to calendar:]
Senator Parys moved that Assembly Bill 934 be withdrawn from the committee on Industry, Labor, Taxation and Banking and laid on the table.
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion to withdraw from committee and lay on the table was a suspension of the rules and required a two-thirds vote.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken. A two-thirds vote would be required, only if an attempt were made to take from the table and consider for action, within the next two days.
Senate Journal of January 30, 1974 .......... Page: 2062
[Tabling of bills en masse permitted]
Senator Parys moved that the remaining assembly bills on the October 12th calendar be laid on the table.
Senator Risser moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-30, absent-0, with leave-3]
Senator Risser requested a division of the question.
Senator Keppler moved that the assembly bills to be laid on the table be voted upon en masse.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the rules could be suspended on individual bills but not on bills en masse.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
By request of Senator Parys, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to lay the assembly bills from the calendar of October 12 on the table.
Senate Journal of October 25, 1973 .......... Page: 1868
[Suspension of rules cannot be tabled:]
Senator Thompson moved that Senate Bill 732 be ordered immediately messaged.
