However, the practice of the Senate has been to consider motions when they are presented under the 14th Order, hence the use of the 10th Order to consider motions has not been necessary.
For the reasons stated in the previous point on this same question, the point of order is well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
677Senate Journal of April 20, 1988 .......... Page: 828
Senator Feingold moved that Assembly Joint Resolution 117 [relating to state income tax credits or refunds for property or sales taxes due in this state (first consideration)] be withdrawn from committee on Aging, Banking, Commercial Credit and Taxation and be referred to committee on Senate Rules.
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 117 cannot be before the Senate since it is not part of the call of the Extraordinary Session.
[Note:] The original call of the April 1988 Extraordinary Session by the Committees on Senate and on Assembly Organization already mentioned "taxes, and property tax relief"; Senate Journal 4/18/88, at page 816.
On 4/20/88 (Senate Journal, page 825), the committees amended the call "to include consideration of a joint resolution to amend the state constitution relating to nonuniform taxation of real property classified as primary personal residence or as improvements to agricultural land and to state income tax credits for property or sales taxes due in this state (first consideration)". The second half of that sentence encompassed the content of 1987 AJR 117.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 1197
[Motion based on misinformation:]
Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 706 [relating to the financial assistance program for septic tank replacement and rehabilitation] be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time.
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because Assembly Bill 706 was not in the committee on Rules [most likely, it was still in the Senate].
Representative T. Thompson withdrew his motion. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 1199
Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 706 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 706 was in the committee on Rules. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Bill 706 was not in the committee on Rules [it was still on a senate message, waiting to be read in] and the point of order not well taken.
678Assembly 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 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 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 879
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 114 [relating to use of flashing red warning lights on school busses] be withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and be considered at this time. Senator Cullen objected.
Senator Chilsen moved that Assembly Bill 114 be withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and be considered at this time.
679 Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that suspension of the rules was proper at any time.
[Note:] The point of order reflected the confusion of the moment. It is true that a motion to suspend the rules can be made at any time by a senator who has the floor. However, in the present case suspension of the rules had failed because unanimous consent had been objected to; not, because the entering of a motion had been refused.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 7, 1982 .......... Page: 3305
Motion:
Representative Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 712 [relating to senate and assembly districts] be made a special order of business at 4:00 P.M. today.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the request out of order because Senate Bill 712 was in a conference committee.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1982 .......... Page: 1790
Point of order:
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 41 the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 621 [relating to prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the mother and regulating other abortions in public hospitals, providing aid to women who suffer from certain diseases exacerbated by pregnancy or delivery, providing care for certain diseases of children and making an appropriation] from committee on Human Services and refer to committee on Senate Organization was not properly before us at this time.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
A similar point of order was raised on March 25, 1976 on Assembly Bill 421. On page 2165 of the Journal of the Senate March 25, 1976, the ruling reads: "As it relates to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 421, the chair ruled that pursuant to Senate Rule 41, a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing has already been scheduled. Any attempt to do so would require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote."
On page 540 of the Journal of the Senate March 16, 1971, Senator from the 14th, Senator Lorge, proposed this rule in Senate Resolution 13. The analysis reads: "This proposal would prevent a motion to recall a bill from committee from taking effect prior to hearing if such has been scheduled".
680 Members have raised the question of the definition of a week. The chair has reviewed the rules and has found no definition of a week by our rules; however, the Index to the Senate Rules and Senate Rule 31 (4) states that Webster's New International Dictionary
will be the standard for language usage. Webster's New International Dictionary defines a week as: "any 7 consecutive days."
A hearing is scheduled on the matter for Monday, March 29, 1982. Therefore, based on past precedent and the definition of a week, it is the opinion of the chair that in accordance with Senate Rule 41 (a) the bill cannot be withdrawn at this time and the point of order raised by the Senator of the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken.
[Tabling of appeal:]
Senator Lorge appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?
Senator Bablitch moved that the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table. The question was: Shall the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-15.] So the motion prevailed.
Senate Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1099
Point of order:
Senator Opitz asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 45 [relating to exempting interspousal transfers from inheritance taxes] be withdrawn from the committee on State and Local Affairs and Taxation and referred to committee on Senate Organization.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 45 from committee is subject to motion to table. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 2, 1982 .......... Page: 1400
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Friday, October 30, 1981 Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that a motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 45 from committee is subject to a motion to table.
The chair has reviewed this matter with great care. At first it would appear that a motion to withdraw is not subject to a motion to table. The chair has reviewed the Senate Journals back through the 1969 legislative session. On several occasions, by unanimous consent, and by a majority vote motions to withdraw have been placed on the table. It would appear that the Senate has established this precedent under several presiding officers, although a ruling has never been issued.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that a motion to withdraw is subject to tabling and the point of order raised by the senator from the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 45 from committee on State and Local Affairs and Taxation and refer to committee on Senate Organization was laid on the table.
Senate Journal of October 29, 1981 .......... Page: 1076
Point of order:
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 493 [relating to compulsory motor vehicle insurance, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was referred to joint committee on Finance.
Senator Lorge moved that Senate Bill 493 be withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and considered at this time.
681 Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not properly before us. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 27, 1982 .......... Page: 1341
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Thursday, October 29, 1981 Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 493 be referred to the joint committee on Finance and the bill was so referred.
Before the next bill was called Senator Lorge moved that the bill be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and considered immediately.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not properly before the Senate.
A similar point of order was raised by Senator Sensenbrenner on February 14, 1978. The chair's ruling stated in part:
"The chair recalls that in past sessions, operating under similar rules, motions to withdraw from committee have been made at other times than the eighth order. In this case the chair finds no written rule either allowing or forbidding the Senator to make a motion to withdraw from committee at the time he made it. But there is strong precedent this session, enunciated as recently as last week by the majority leader, that motions to withdraw bills from committee will be restricted to the eighth order of business."
A rule change has since moved the order of business "Motions" from the eighth order to the fourteenth order. It is the opinion of the chair that based on this past ruling and our precedent of the past several sessions that the point of order raised by the Senator of the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken, and the motion should be made on the fourteenth order of business.
Senator Lorge appealed the ruling of the chair. By request of Senator Chilsen, with unanimous consent, the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair was laid on the table.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
