Senator Lorge moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 495 failed to be concurred in.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order the motion for reconsideration was not proper because Senator Lorge did not vote with the prevailing side.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1832
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge moved that the record on Assembly Bill 495 be expunged.
Senator Flynn raised the point of order that the motion was not properly before the Senate.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1835
[Motion:]
Senator Lorge moved that Assembly Bill 495 be referred to committee on Senate Organization.
The chair ruled the motion was out of order.
665Unanimous consent: member requesting must have floor
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1680
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Representative Hauke did not have the floor to make a unanimous consent request.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 29, 1981 .......... Page: 1625
[Background: the Assembly just completed the amendable stage.]
Representative Loftus moved that Assembly Bill 818 be laid on the table. Representative Broydrick in the chair.
Representative Prosser asked unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading of the bill title. Representative Kirby objected.
[Motion:]
Representative Prosser moved that the clerk dispense with the reading of the bill title.
Assembly Bill 818 [compiled "budget trailer" bill]: relating to soil and water conservation aids, Stonefield village, aid to families with dependent children, Milwaukee state office building space rental changes, temporary reallocation of state balances, special school adjustment aid, school cost controls, school of veterinary medicine funding, shared revenue, medical assistance, gift and estate tax exemption for interspousal transfers, community aids, elderly and handicapped transportation copayment, 10% property tax credit, levy limits, granting rule-making authority, providing for a study, providing penalties and making and decreasing appropriations.
The chair ruled the motion out of order because Representative Prosser did not have the floor. The chair ruled that Representative Schneider had the floor.
Veto review session: conduct of
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1992 .......... Page: 1207
[Action on veto:]
Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 491 [relating to resource accounts for recipients of aid to families with dependent children] be withdrawn from today's calendar and taken up at this time. Granted.
666 Representative Underheim moved that the motion to override Assembly Bill 491 be laid on the table.
[Note:] When a veto has been placed before the assembly, the appropriate actions are debate of the issues and a vote on the question: "Shall the bill (or shall item ... of the partial vetoes) be passed notwithstanding the objections of the governor?"
A motion to table consideration of the veto is not in order unless it is done with the understanding that consideration is merely postponed until a particular person has returned to the floor or some missing information has been obtained. A.Rule 44 permits committee referral of a veto "for review and report", but a veto so referred remains available for floor action scheduling by the committee on rules.
A.Rule 73 (1) (b) prohibits reconsideration of "the assembly's decision on a veto". Because unanimous consent had been granted to take up the veto on AB 491, the motion to table consideration of the veto may have been deemed an improper reconsideration of the assembly's action.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion out of order.
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1991 .......... Page: 574
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that to override item veto C-30 of Assembly Bill 91 would violate s. 20.003 (4) [required general fund balance] of the Wisconsin Statutes. He cited as precedents the point of order on 1985 Assembly Bill 447 raised on January 28, 1986.
[Note:] The 1986 precedent concerned a proposed new expenditure at a time when the state's revenue projections indicated that the general fund balance was likely to dip below the minimum.
Section 10 (2) (b) of article V of the constitution directs the legislature to reconsider partial vetoes of appropriation bills and, having decided to attempt the override of a specific partial veto, a statutory rule cannot prevent the legislature from acting under the constitution.
Until the legislature adjourns sine die without providing the balanced budget required by section 5 of article VIII [annual tax levy to equal expenses], it cannot be said that an anticipated negative budget balance resulting from a veto override violates the state constitution. Even if the legislature so adjourns, the conflict between the 2 provisions of the constitution will have to be decided in the courts.
The presiding officer cannot determine the constitutionality of a proposition.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 10, 1982 .......... Page: 2229
Point of order: Senator Cullen moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-33, absent-0, with leave-0.]
667 The question was: Shall the bill [Senate Bill 3, (April 1982) Special Session, relating senate and assembly districts and matters pertaining to the decennial legislative redistricting] pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call not recorded here; shown 6/14/82 on page 2239.]
Prior to the closing of the roll call, the Senator from the 15th Senate District, Senator Cullen, raised the point of order that the Senator from the 31st Senate District, Senator Harnisch, was recorded as having voted while the senate was under call, but was not currently in his chair. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 14, 1982 .......... Page: 2239
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Thursday, June 10, the Senator from the 15th, Senator Cullen, raised the point of order that the Senator from the 31st, Senator Harnisch, is recorded as having voted while the Senate was under call, but was not currently in his seat. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
At the time the point of order was raised the president took note that the Senator from the 31st, Senator Harnisch, was not present. In order for the Senate to transact business under call, all members must be present. All business in reference to the question on which the call was placed should have ceased at the time it was noted that not all members were present. The chair, immediately following the time the point of order was taken under advisement, noticed that the Senator from the 31st returned to the chambers. It is the opinion of the chair that the point of order is well taken. However, since the Senator of the 31st had returned the vote is considered valid.
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-13.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the senate refused to pass the vetoed bill notwithstanding the objections of the Governor.
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?
668 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.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1980 .......... Page: 3477
[Background:] Representative Kincaid asked unanimous consent to introduce a resolution. Representative Shabaz objected.
Point of order:
Representative Kincaid rose to the point of order that the introduction of a resolution was in order during the veto review session. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] It appears that no ruling was given. There is no record of any resolution or joint resolution introduced by Representative Kincaid in the 1979 Session on or after May 28, 1980; however, based on the drafting record of June 1980 Special Session Senate Joint Resolution 4, it is likely that Rep. Kincaid's proposal became A.Amdt.1 to that joint resolution (to grant Wisconsin final decision-making authority on the siting of a radioactive waste-depository in this state).
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 853
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 79 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1979 legislature, and making appropriations].
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered the order of the day. Senator Krueger objected.
Senator Krueger asked unanimous consent that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Krueger moved that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar.
The question was: Shall Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-21.] So the motion did not prevail.
669 Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Bablitch moved that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day.
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 854
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that it would take a two-thirds vote to consider the Item Vetoes presented to the Chief Clerk as the order of the day.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Senate Rules are silent on the order in which partial vetoes of a bill are to be considered. However, Senate Rule 47 (4) does state that the Senate by majority vote may direct the consideration of amendments. It is the chair's opinion that partial vetoes may be treated as amendments and the Senate may by majority vote direct the order of consideration.
