2 0 0 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 12, 2002 .......... Page: 647
Point of order:
Senator Zien moved that Assembly Bill 675 be withdrawn from the committee Senate Organization.
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that in accordance with Senate Rule 41 the motion to withdraw from the committee on Senate Organization is not proper at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senator Welch moved that the rules be suspended.
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that the motion is not proper at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling.
The first point of order may have been based on one of the following rules:
The motion to withdraw is not listed as one of the permissible motions when a question is under debate:
Senate Rule 63. Motions in order during debate.
(1) When a question is under debate, a motion may not be received except:
Senate Rule 17 (1) (n) Fourteenth order. Motions may be offered.
Senate Rule 41 (1) (a) A proposal or other matter may be rereferred at any time prior to its passage, except that a motion to withdraw from committee may not take effect during the 7 days preceding any scheduled committee hearing or the 7 days following the date on which a committee hearing is held.
The committee on Senate Organization, however, usually does not hold hearings.
The second point of order may have been based on custom that is written into the assembly rules:
Assembly Rule 62 (3) The presiding officer may speak on points of order in preference to others and may:
(a) Immediately announce and explain a ruling on a point of order that has been raised; or
(b) Defer such ruling by taking a point of order under advisement.
1. When the point of order concerns a proposal or a question currently pending on such proposal, taking the point of order under advisement removes the proposal from further consideration until the presiding officer announces the ruling on the point of order.
2. When the point of order concerns an amendment, taking the point of order under advisement removes from further consideration until a ruling on the point of order is made only the specific amendment.
3. When the point of order concerns an amendment to an amendment, taking the point of order under advisement removes from further consideration until a ruling on the point of order is made only the amendment to the amendment, except that the original amendment is also removed from further consideration once all other amendments to the amendment have been disposed of.
4. All points of order involving amendments, or amendments to amendments, must be disposed of before the assembly proceeds to any question of lesser precedence (see rule 65).
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 384
Point of order:
Representative Cullen rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled well taken that the point of order raised by Representative Cullen that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
[Note:] The joint resolution provided that the conference report on 1999 AB-133 is amendable but only as to the provision converting lottery appropriations to general program revenue funding.
This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order. A parliamentary inquiry might have informed the members whether the joint resolution was privileged. A point of order is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning a question currently before the house. Had the joint resolution been ruled not privileged, the point of order could have been made.
Assembly Rule 43 (1) Any resolution or joint resolution relating to the officers, members, former members, procedures, or organization of the assembly or legislature is privileged in that it may be offered under any order of business by a member who has the floor and may be taken up immediately before all other proposals, unless referred by the presiding officer to a standing committee or to the calendar.
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 385
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was not properly before the Assembly because a committee of conference report can not be amended.
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Cullen appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the ruling of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-54, Noes-45. Motion carried.
[Note:] The joint resolution provided that the conference report on 1999 AB-133 is amendable but only as to the provision converting lottery appropriations to general program revenue appropriations.
Assembly Rule 52 (4) was later created to provide: An amendment to a report of a committee of conference may not be offered.
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 851
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 441 from the committee on Judiciary and refer it to the committee on Rules required a two-thirds vote under Assembly Rule 15(1). Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, the bill died at the conclusion of the last floorperiod on March 26, 1998. When the bill was revived, pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 47, the 21day period required by Assembly Rule 15(1) would have to begin again. Therefore, the bill had only been in committee for 14 days.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken because the Assembly concurred in Senate Joint Resolution 47 which states "...the following proposals are revived for further consideration in the April 1998 extraordinary session, which consideration shall begin at the stage that the proposals had reached immediately before adjournment on March 26, 1998". Therefore, he ruled that a two-thirds vote was not needed because the 21day period required by Assembly Rule 15(1) began on July 1, 1997 when the bill was introduced and referred to the committee on Judiciary.
Representative Hubler appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the ruling of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-50, Noes-47. Motion carried.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 15 (1) A proposal may not be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to the committee. After the 21-day period, a proposal may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition, but:
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1995 .......... Page: 118
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that under Assembly Rule 15 (3), a motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 3 from committee required a two-thirds vote because a vote to withdraw the bill from committee had already been taken on January 17, 1995.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Prosser ruled the point of order not well taken, because the vote taken on January 17, 1995 to withdraw Assembly Bill 3 from committee was a vote on suspension of the rules, and not on a motion allowed under Assembly Rule 15 (2).
[Note:] This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order.
Assembly Rule 15 (3) Once a motion to withdraw a proposal from a committee which requires a vote of a majority of the members present and voting fails, all subsequent motions to withdraw that proposal from the same committee require a vote of two-thirds of the members present and voting for adoption and must be decided without debate.
Assembly Journal of April 7, 1995 .......... Page: 224
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 73 from the Joint Committee on Finance was not in order under Section 16.47(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Prosser took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of April 8, 1995 .......... Page: 233
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Prosser ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Freese on Friday, April 7 that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 73 from the Joint Committee on Finance was not in order under Section16.47(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Assembly Rule 15(1)(b). The motion made by Representative Schneider to withdraw the bill from committee included a request for suspension of the rules and therefore was in order.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 15 (1) A proposal may not be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to the committee. After the 21-day period, a proposal may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition, but:
(b) A bill requiring, but not having, an emergency statement for passage may not be withdrawn from the joint committee on finance or from the committee on rules.
16.47(2) No bill containing an appropriation or increasing the cost of state government or decreasing state revenues in an annual amount exceeding $10,000 shall be passed by either house until the budget bill has passed both houses; except that the governor or the joint committee on finance may recommend such bills to the presiding officer of either house, in writing, for passage and the legislature may enact them, and except that the senate or assembly committee on organization may recommend to the presiding officer of its respective house any such bill not affecting state finances by more than $100,000 biennially. Such bills shall be accompanied by a statement to the effect that they are emergency bills recommended by the governor, the joint committee on finance, or the senate or assembly committee on organization. Such statement by the governor or joint committee on finance shall be sufficient to permit passage prior to the budget bill. Such statement by the senate or assembly committee on organization shall be effective only to permit passage by its respective house.
Tabling motion
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 29, 2003 .......... Page: 226
Point of order:
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 67 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 29, 2003 .......... Page: 229
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Schneider that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 67 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Representative Hundertmark moved that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 67 be laid on the table.
[Note:] The substitute amendment permitted health care providers to refuse to participate in certain procedures on moral or religious grounds. The amendment added to the list of procedures procedures for providing contraceptive articles.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
Assembly Journal of May 29, 2003 .......... Page: 227
Point of order:
Representative Hundertmark rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 67 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 29, 2003 .......... Page: 229
Representative Hundertmark withdrew her point of order that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 67 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Representative Schneider asked unanimous consent that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 67 be laid on the table. Granted.
[Note:] The substitute amendment permitted health care providers to refuse to participate in certain procedures on moral or religious grounds. The amendment added to the list of procedures procedures for providing sildenafil citrate (Viagra).
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
Assembly Journal of November 5, 2003 .......... Page: 497
Point of order:
Representative Friske rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 19 to Senate Bill 214 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 5, 2003 .......... Page: 501
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Friske that Assembly amendment 19 to Senate Bill 214 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Representative Suder moved that Assembly amendment 19 to Senate Bill 214 be laid on the table.
[Note:] The bill permitted the carrying of a concealed weapon, but not in a building on a campus. The amendment provided that the exception was anywhere on a campus.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of July 26, 2001 .......... Page: 371
Representative Duff withdrew his point of order raised on Monday, July 2, that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Ruling on the point of order:
