The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Tabling motion
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 24, 1989 .......... Page: 179
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to table Assembly Bill 286 [relating to contributions to retailers by brewers and wholesalers of fermented malt beverages] was not properly before the assembly because the motion had been voted upon earlier. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling of the chair:
616 The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Welch that the motion to table Assembly Bill 286 had been acted
upon earlier and therefore was not properly before the assembly. The motion to table Assembly Bill 286 had not been before the assembly.
Point of order (p. 180):
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to table assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 286 was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 88.
[Note:] Except for a point of order on a motion to table the entire bill, the most recent action on 1989 AB 286 had been the assembly's refusal to table the substitute amendment.
Although the assembly was not under a call of the house at that time (A.Rule 88 prohibits successive calls on same question), A.Rule 69 declares that
a motion or procedure used for the purpose of delay is "dilatory and out of order".
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 6, 1990 .......... Page: 772
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the Chair is frustrating the will of the majority by permitting a motion to suspend the rules and withdraw a bill [Senate Bill 18] be withdrawn from from committee to be tabled. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 15, 1990 .......... Page: 861
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, March 6, 1990, the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that in accordance with Senate Rule 93 (5), a motion to table a motion to withdraw a bill from committee was out of order. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Rule 93(5) reads as follows: No motion shall be entertained to postpone action to a day or time certain.
The motion to table does postpone action, however, it does not postpone action until a day or time certain. The purpose of the rule is not to postpone "definitely." A motion to table or postpone "indefinitely" is in order.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 29th is not well taken and the motion to table is properly before the Senate.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
The question was: Shall the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 18 from the committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs and refer to the committee on Senate Rules be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 20; noes, 13 [display of roll call vote omitted]. Tabled.
617 1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1988 .......... Page: 900
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 7 to assembly amendment 76 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the 1988 annual budget bill, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided] because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 76 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because the tabling of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 76 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850 did not constitute "already acting upon".
Assembly Journal of June 26, 1987 .......... Page: 290
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion to table assembly amendment 70 to Senate Bill 100 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the general executive budget bill of the 1987 legislature, and making appropriations] took precedence over consideration of an amendment (assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 70) offered subsequent to the motion to table. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The chair ruled that, under Assembly Rule 65 (2) and (3), the motion to lay assembly amendment 70 to Senate Bill 100 on the table took precedence over consideration of an amendment introduced subsequent to the motion to table. The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 31, 1985 .......... Page: 544-45
Background:
Representative Hephner moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec.Sess. [relating to civil and criminal liability relating to alcohol beverages and providing penalties].
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be rejected? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-49.] Motion failed.
Representative Hephner moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be laid on the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-45, noes-44.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table.
618 Speaker Loftus in the chair.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-44, noes-44.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-9, noes-80.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table.
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that the motion to take assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., from the table was not proper under Assembly Rule 69 (2).
[Note:] A.Rule 69 (2) holds dilatory "two consecutive identical motions .... unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
The decision of what is "significant" business is made by the presiding officer based on the consensus of the body in the particular circumstances and time.
Repetition of the vote to take the amendment from table showed that the house was not as closely divided as the earlier vote had indicated. Immediately following (no other amendments were pending) the bill was ordered to the 3rd reading, the rules were suspended, and the bill was concurred in on a vote of 87 to 2.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-43, noes-46.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 4, 1986 .......... Page: 649
[Point of order:]
By request of Senator Plewa, with unanimous consent Senate Bill 94 [to Senate Bill 94, relating to recodifying and making technical and minor substantive changes in the administrative rule-making process] was taken from the table and considered at this time.
Read.
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 1 was concurred in?
619 Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the bill was not properly before the senate.
[Note:] Under S.Rule 41 (1)(c), a matter withhdrawn from a committee must, unless referred to a different committee, go to the committee on senate organization for scheduling.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 94 was referred to committee on Senate Organization.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 1122
[Tabling motion, inappropriate under suspension of rules:]
Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 815 [relating to the availability of dental, optometric, pharmaceutical and podiatric services under health care plans] be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the calendar.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 815 be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the committee on Rules. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Representative Johnson moved that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 815 from the committee on Health and Human Services and refer it to the calendar be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Merkt rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1051
[Tabling motion, permitted after taking from table:]
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 [relating to authorizing credit unions to act as depositories for public funds and designating the higher education corporation as a public depositor] be laid on the table? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-46.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be taken from the table.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be taken from the table? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-51, noes-47.] Motion carried.
Representative Shoemaker moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 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 under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The motion was not dilatory because the status of the amendment (tabled, then taken from table) had changed.
620 The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
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
