Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2351
Representative Shabaz moved that the assembly recede from its position on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596 [relating to exempting solar energy home heating systems and electricity generating devices from the property tax].
Speaker pro tempore Kedrowski in the chair.
The chair ruled that the assembly could only adhere to or recede from its position and that no amendments could be introduced to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596.
[Note:] The assembly had considered S.Amdt.1 on 2/5/80 (A.Jour., p. 2105), nonconcurred, and messaged its action to the senate. The senate voted to adhere on 2/19/80 (S.Jour., p. 1365).
The question was: Shall the assembly recede from its position on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596?
Senate Journal of February 19, 1980 .......... Page: 1365
[Background: Assembly Bill 596, relating to exempting solar energy home heating systems and electricity generating devices from the property tax. Read.]
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
Senator Flynn in the chair.
Senator Bablitch moved that the senate recede from its position.
The question was: Shall the senate recede from its position?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-14, noes-16.] So the motion did not prevail.
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that a tie vote on the question of adherence would have the same effect as the senate receding from its position.
The chair [Sen. Flynn] ruled the point of order untimely.
Senator Berger asked unanimous consent that the senate adhere to its position and appoint a Committee of Conference. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Berger moved that the senate adhere to its position and appoint a Committee of Conference.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the motion was divided into two parts.
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-13.] So the senate adheres to its position.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the chair will appoint members of the Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 596.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1977 .......... Page: 311
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that a motion for reconsideration of the vote by which the assembly failed to recede from its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 63 was in order pursuant to Assembly Rule 72.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that a motion to recede under Joint Rule 3 is in effect a motion to reconsider. Therefore, a motion to reconsider a motion to recede would be the equivalent of reconsidering a motion to reconsider. Since this is not in order under Assembly Rule 72 (3), the speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
497Reconciliation, recodification, revision or revisor's correction bill
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1986 .......... Page: 904
Point of order:
Representative R. Young rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 889 [relating to various changes in human services and county laws] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] AB 889 was a 231-page revision bill standardizing the names of 4 agencies in each county dealing with human services reconciling requirements of the 1985 budget (WisAct 29) with existing statute law on county human services.
A.Amdt.1 attempted to attach to the bill a new procedure to fix county responsibility for the cost of emergency medical care for indigents.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 1, 1981 .......... Page: 754
[Recodification bill: substantive amendment held expansion of scope:]
Representative Leopold rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 300 [relating to a recodification of alcoholic beverage laws, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) because it goes beyond the purpose of recodification of alcoholic beverage laws.
498 [Note:] A.Amdt.5 proposed to add a new exception, "private tennis clubs", to the general prohibition against the presence of minors on premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.
The liquor law recodification was the product of 4 year's work by a Legislative Council committee directed "to refrain from making substantive revisions of those laws". While "recodification" bills are not mentioned in the rules of either house, Senate Rule 50 (10) provides: "Amendments to a revision bill are germane, but amendments to a revisor's correction bill are germane only if they make corrections and do not add new substantive material".
See also the floor amendments below: A.Amdt.6 proposed to eliminate a distinction between beer and liquor so that certain acts by minors would be treated with the same severity in either case.
A.Amdt.9 proposed to reduce the residency requirement for an applicant for an on-premise retail beer or liquor sale license from one year to 60 days.
A.Amdt.10 proposed to grandfather existing retail licenses, even if a municipality's declining population subsequently reduced the quota.
[A.Amdt.5:] The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Bill 300 had the very limited purpose of recodification of alcoholic beverage laws and substantive amendments were not germane. [Intervening text omitted.]
Point of order:
Representative Leopold rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[A.Amdt.6:] The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of July 1, 1981 .......... Page: 755
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[A.Amdt.9:] The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Point of order:
Representative Dorff rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to Assembly Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[A.Amdt.10:] The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Reconsideration motion
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.
Representative Underheim moved that the motion to override Assembly Bill 491 be laid on the table.
499 [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 June 26, 1991 .......... Page: 330
Motion not timely:
Representative Hauke moved that Part 2 of assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 91 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the 1991 legislature, and making appropriations] be taken from the table and taken up at this time. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-38, noes-60.] Motion failed.
Representative Hauke moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 11 [to AB 91] failed to be adopted.
[Note:] The motion to reconsider assembly action on an amendment may be entered immediately following final assembly action on the amendment, but if not then made it can only be entered following the conclusion of the amending stage (engrossment) in the proposal's consideration after entering a motion to reconsider engrossment.
A motion to reconsider the assembly's action on an amendment is taken up only if the motion to reconsider engrossment of the proposal is successful; A.Rule 73 (4) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion not timely.
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 29, 1989 .......... Page: 274
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration, which was ruled untimely, was in order since he tried to be recognized immediately after the vote on concurrence in Senate Bill 65.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because there were two representatives standing at the same time seeking recognition and the speaker has the right to recognize either one. The chair also noted that the motion for reconsideration will still be in order during the eighth order of business on the next legislative day.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 8, 1987 .......... Page: 384
[Time for motion expired:]
500 Representative Coleman moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 24 to Senate Bill 7 was adopted.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the motion was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a).
[Note:] The 2nd reading stage ends with the vote on the question: "Shall the bill be ordered engrossed and read a 3rd time?" Thus, there first has to be reconsideration of the vote on that question before the vote on a specific amendment can be reconsidered; Assembly Rule 73 (4) (a).
The Senate Bill 7 was ordered to the 3rd reading on October 6 [Assembly Journal, page 371]. October 7 had been a roll call day [Assembly Journal, page 373]. October 8 was too late to enter either a motion to reconsider assembly amendment 24 or a motion to reconsider engrossment of the bill.
Representative Prosser moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 7 was ordered to a third reading.
The speaker ruled that the motion was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a).
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1986 .......... Page: 936-39
[Action when reconsideration of passage or concurrence fails.]
The question was: Shall the vote by which senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 6 to Senate Joint Resolution 1 [relating to authorizing the creation of a Wisconsin state lottery (first consideration)] was nonconcurred in be reconsidered? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-0, noes-99.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall the vote by which senate amendment 2 to assembly amendment 6 to Senate Joint Resolution 1 was concurred in be reconsidered? Motion failed.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate. Representative Schneider objected.
Representative Becker moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-62, noes-36.] Motion failed (less than 2/3).
Point of order:
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 1 should be immediately messaged to the senate under Assembly Rule 50.
