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[relating to the availability of dental, optometric, pharmaceutical and podiatric services under health care plans] be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the calendar.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 815 be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the committee on Rules.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
[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:
