54
S 75
SECTION 15 -- IMMEDIATE TRANSMITTAL
15-1.1
NOT APPLICABLE TO BILL PLACED ON CONSENT CALENDAR
(
Formerly SP 183
)
The bill, as amended, was placed on the consent calendar. A senator then requested
immediate transmittal to the House.
The president ruled that, if immediate transmittal to the House was desired, the bill
had to be removed from the consent calendar, passed on a roll call, and then transmitted
under a suspension of the rules. Otherwise, the bill would be transmitted to the House with
the rest of the bills passed on consent at the end of the session day.
O'Neill, May 2, 1980.
15-1.2
IMMEDIATE TRANSMITTAL TO THE HOUSE (JR 17) (
Overruled
)
(
Formerly SP 182
)
On the next to the last day of the session, a bill creating a state inspector general was
called in the Senate. The bill was amended by House "A," which the Senate rejected. The Senate
then adopted Senate "A." After the vote was announced, the majority leader moved to suspend
the rules for immediate transmittal back to the House. The minority leader objected to the
suspension and asked for a roll call vote. The vote was 21 to 15 for suspension. Because it failed
to receive the necessary two-thirds vote, the motion failed.
After intervening business, the majority leader raised a point of order that, under JR 17,
the inspector general bill should be immediately transmitted back to the House even though the
rules had not been suspended. JR 17 provided for immediate transmittal in the last three session
days of any bill on which one house rejects the other's amendment. The inspector general bill
met this criterion.
The president invited debate.
The minority leader argued that JR 17 was not meant to allow automatic waiver of rules
suspensions in the last three days, but merely to obviate the need for the house to which a bill is
returned to print it on its calendar before taking action. He said use of the word "may" in the first
part of the rule supported his interpretation because it gave the receiving house a choice of
whether to consider the bill.
The president rejected the minority leader's argument concerning the first "may" in
the rule, saying that because there was a comma after the clause containing the word, it did
not enter into the interpretation of the crucial second half of the sentence. But he noted the
word "may" is used throughout the rule. This means that the two houses can choose whether
or not to transmit bills immediately without suspending the rules in the last three days. The
inspector general bill met the standard of JR 17 in that the Senate had rejected the House
amendment. Even so, the majority leader had moved to suspend the rules for immediate
transmittal back to the House. By doing so, he chose not to exercise the automatic immediate
transmittal option available under JR 17. The Senate failed to pass his motion by the requisite
two-thirds. That decision could not now be reconsidered or altered because
Mason
forbids
reconsideration or renewal of a motion to suspend the rules for the same purpose on the same
day without some alteration in the parliamentary situation (
Mason
283(6)).
48
S 76
IMMEDIATE TRANSMITTAL ----- 15-1.2
Continued
The majority leader's point of order seeking immediate transmittal of the bill under
JR 17 was, in effect, a move to reconsider that earlier decision and was, for that reason, not
well taken.
The president ruled, furthermore, that the immediate transmittal option embodied
in JR 17 was now foreclosed as far as the inspector general bill was concerned because the
majority leader had not chosen to exercise it immediately after the amended bill passed.
The ruling was appealed and, on a roll call vote, the president was overruled.
The majority leader asked if it was in order to move the bill's immediate transmittal to the
House.
The president said that no motion was necessary because the Senate had indicated
by overruling him that such bills were to be transmitted automatically.
Fauliso, June 4,
1985.
15-1.3
RECONSIDERED BILL; EXPIRATION OF TIME TO RECONSIDER
(
Formerly SP 181
)
On the last day of the session, a bill was defeated. Later the same day, a senator moved to
reconsider the vote on the bill. The motion to reconsider carried and then the bill itself passed. A
senator raised a point of order that SR 10 requires the clerk to retain bills until the one session
day period for reconsideration had elapsed. Since this bill had been reconsidered and passed on
the same day as its earlier defeat, the right of reconsideration had expired and the clerk should
send the bill to the House immediately instead of holding it for another day.
The president ruled the point well taken. The clerk was required to retain bill until
the right of reconsideration has expired and no longer. Since SR 26 provides that no bill
may be reconsidered twice in the same session and the bill had already been reconsidered
once, the reconsideration time must be deemed expired. The bill must be sent immediately
to the House.
Fauliso, May 7, 1986.
SECTION 16 -- LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
16-1.1
CASE PENDING IN SUPERIOR COURT; VALIDATION OF
ACTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY (
Formerly HP 184
)
The bill provided for minimum benefits and improved administration in the state program of
tax reductions for elderly homeowners and grants for elderly renters. The bill was amended by
House amendment "H," which validated action regarding the circuit breaker program taken in a
1986 special session of the General Assembly. A senator raised a point of order that the amendment
was improper because a case was pending asking the Superior Court to determine if the 1986 law
was valid and "any matter awaiting adjudication in a court should not be debated or discussed in a
legislative body" (
Mason
111(3)).
38
S 77
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY ----- 16-1.1
Continued
A second senator argued that the matter awaiting adjudication was whether the 1986
special session was properly and legally called. This was not strictly the subject of the
amendment. House "H" merely sought to validate the action of the General Assembly in 1986 if
the court determined that the 1986 session was illegal.
The president ruled the point of order not well taken.
Fauliso, June 3, 1987.
SECTION 17 -- PASS RETAIN
17-1.1
HOLDING OVER (
Formerly SP 188
)
Without objection, the bill was pass retained. Later the same day, a senator moved
adoption of the bill.
The president ruled that a pass retained bill must be held over at least until the next
session day.
Ballen, April 17, 1980.
17-1.2
MOTION DEBATABLE AND VOTABLE (
Formerly SP 187
)
A motion was made to pass retain a bill. A senator objected to the motion and asked to
comment.
The president ruled that a motion to pass retain was both debatable and votable if
objection exists.
Fauliso, May 5, 1980.
17-1.3
MOTION IN ORDER WHEN A QUESTION IS UNDER DEBATE
(SR 29) (
Formerly SP 186
)
A senator raised a point of order as to whether a motion to pass retain could be made
while an amendment is on the floor.
The president, citing SR 29, ruled that a motion to pass retain is in order when a
question is under debate.
Groark, May 1, 1994.
49
S 78
SECTION 18 -- PETITIONS
18-1.1
PETITION FOR BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE (JR 19) - EFFECT OF
PRIOR REPORT OF SPLIT COMMITTEE (
Formerly SP 190
)
A senator moved passage of a bill which had been petitioned out of committee. The
House members of the committee had previously reported the bill favorably and it had been
passed by the House. A second senator raised the point of order that the bill was not properly
before the Senate because (1) it had been in possession of the House and not the committee when
the petition was delivered and (2) after passage by the House, the bill had been referred to the
committee after its reporting deadline for petitions.
The president ruled the point well taken, since a bill reported out by one side of a
split committee was no longer in the possession of the committee, and also since the
reporting deadline established for a bill reported out by one side of a committee, passed by
one chamber and subsequently referred to committee, was not met.
The ruling was appealed and sustained.
Killian, 1978.
18-1.2
PETITIONS FOR FULLY DRAFTED BILL REJECTED BY THE
CLERK (JR 8; 11); APPEALS OF RULINGS NOT
AUTOMATICALLY DEBATABLE (SR 3) (
Formerly SP 192
)
A senator raised a point of order that the Senate clerk had refused to receive and file four
petitions for fully drafted bills. The senator stated that the petitions complied with the rules. The
senator asked for a ruling on the clerk's authority to reject petitions.
The clerk said that the petitions had not reached his office within the required time and
that he and the Legislative Commissioners' Office felt they were therefore invalid. He returned
the petitions to their originators without filing them and now had nothing in his possession.
The president ruled that since the petitions had not been accepted by the clerk,
there was nothing before the Senate on which he could effectively rule. He noted that the
rules do not provide for appeal to the Senate president or the full Senate when petitions are
rejected by the clerk. Similar situations had occurred before and if they were considered a
problem they could be addressed only through a rules change. He ruled the point not well
taken.
The senator moved that the petitions be referred to the Government Administration and
Elections Committee.
The president ruled the motion out of order. There was nothing before the body to
refer because the clerk had rejected the petitions.
The senator appealed the ruling and asked for debate. The president refused permission
for debate.
The senator raised a point of order that an appeal from a president's ruling, duly
seconded, was automatically debatable.
The president ruled this point not well taken.
On a roll call, the president's ruling concerning the petition was sustained.
Fauliso,
March 25, 1981.
40
S 79
PETITIONS -----
Continued
18-1.3
PETITION INACCURATE (
Formerly SP 191
)
The petitioned bill received an unfavorable report from the Energy and Public Utilities
Committee. A senator moved that the committee's unfavorable report be rejected and began to
explain the bill. Another senator raised a point of order that the bill was improperly before the
Senate because the petition circulated on its behalf did not refer to a bill in the Energy
Committee's possession. The petition was for a proposed substitute bill which had been defeated
in committee, leaving only the original bill in the committee's possession and available for
petitioning out. Though the two bills dealt with the same subject, the substitute (that is, the bill
the first senator was describing) was substantially different from the original.
The first senator argued that the petition was in order since the Senate clerk had crossed
out the words "proposed substitute" when he received it, and none of the senators signing the
petition inquired as to the difference between the original and substitute bills. Thus, despite the
technical error, the petition could still be said to express the wishes of two-thirds of the Senate as
required by the rules.
The president ruled the point of order well taken. When the petition was circulated
and signed, it referred to a proposed substitute bill which was not in the committee's
possession and could not therefore be petitioned. The change made in the clerk's office was
not enough to remedy the inaccuracy. It was very important that petitions be absolutely
accurate when they are circulated so members know what they are signing.
The first senator appealed the ruling, but on a roll call, the president was sustained.
Fauliso, April 21, 1982.
SECTION 19 -- POINT OF ORDER
19-1.1
UNFAVORABLE REPORT (
Formerly SP 197
)
The bill received an unfavorable report from the Transportation Committee. A senator
moved to overturn the unfavorable report. A second senator raised a point of order that the bill
was improper because it contained a $30,000 appropriation not approved by the Appropriations
Committee.
The president ruled the point not well taken. Because the bill had received an
unfavorable report, it was not technically before the chamber until the unfavorable report
was overturned, if it was.
O'Neill, June 1, 1979.
49
S 80
POINT OF ORDER -----
Continued
19-1.2
MOTION TO PASS TEMPORARILY AND POINT OF ORDER (SR 3)
(
Formerly SP 195
)
The bill concerned a motor vehicle emissions inspections program. The amendment
removed a provision in the bill requiring the state to bear the costs of the program over and
above income from inspection fees. A senator raised a point of order with respect to the
unamended bill; that, in adding a provision for a legislative committee to approve or reject the
proposed inspection agreement between the state and the contractor, the Appropriations
Committee had exceeded its powers and substantively altered the bill.
A second senator moved to pass the bill temporarily.
The acting president ruled that the motion to pass temporarily could not be made
until the point of order was disposed of.
Prete, April 28, 1980.
19-1.3
POINT OF ORDER RAISED DURING TECHNICAL SESSION;
GERMANENESS (
Formerly SP 196
)
During a session held to advance the calendar, a senator moved that items on the Senate
agenda be acted upon as indicated. The agenda included two favorable reports to be read for the
second time and tabled for the calendar and printing. Another senator raised a point of order that
one of these bills was not germane to the subject of the special session.
The president pro tempore ruled that the point of order, although technically
timely, must be held in abeyance until a regular session when the entire Senate was present
and could discuss the bill's germaneness. In the meantime, he allowed the bill to be read a
second time, printed and put on the calendar. He also stated that no ruling against the
senator's point would be made solely on the grounds that it was not timely raised.
Murphy,
December 21, 1981.
19-1.4
POINT OF ORDER NOT TIMELY (
Formerly SP 194
)
The Senate passed a bill on the last day of the session. After intervening business, a
senator raised a point of order that action on the bill was improper. The bill had not been
properly before the Senate, he said, because the House, which acted on the bill earlier in the day,
had not suspended the rules for immediate transmittal. A second senator argued that the first
senator's point of order was improper because it was not raised before the irregularity or occasion
for the point of order had passed. On procedural questions, it is too late as soon as the particular
point has been passed or the next business taken up (
Mason
241(1)).
The president ruled the point of order was not timely.
Fauliso, June 3, 1987.
45
S 81
POINT OF ORDER -----
Continued
19-1.5
POINT OF ORDER NOT TIMELY DURING ROLL CALL VOTE
(
Formerly SP 193
)
The emergency certified bill banned the sale of specified assault weapons. It passed the
House with 10 House amendments. The proponent moved to pass the bill in concurrence with the
House. Another senator moved that the Senate vote separately on each House amendment. The
proponent opposed the motion and the president called for a roll call vote. A senator raised a
point of order that, under Senate precedent, no vote was required and that any senator could ask
to have House amendments adopted separately. Another senator raised a point of order that the
first senator's point was not proper because a roll call vote was in progress.
The president ruled the second point well taken. Points of order could not interrupt
a roll call vote. Once the president had called for the vote and the machine was open, no
point of order as to the appropriateness of taking the vote can be raised until the vote is
finished (
Mason
241(1)).
Groark, June 8, 1993.
SECTION 20 -- POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
20-1.1
CONTENT OF (
Formerly SP 189
)
A senator rose for a point of personal privilege. He inquired through the chair whether the
majority leader would call the Senate into session to allow a vote on a bill to cut the state
gasoline tax rate as of April 1 as the governor had proposed. The majority leader replied that the
gas tax reduction was not before the Senate and that the Senate's meeting dates depended on
available legislation. The senator then asked the Finance Committee's ranking member whether
the committee was considering any bill to reduce the gas tax that could be reported out within
two weeks. The ranking member said that there were two such bills and, since the Finance
Committee was scheduled to meet three times in the coming two weeks, it could vote on the bills
at those meetings. The first senator then asked that, given that there was no assurance that the
full Senate would have a chance to vote on before April 1st, that the gas tax reduction bill be
emergency certified.
The Senate president pro tempore rose and asked the president to intervene and say
whether the senator's questions to other senators and discussion about the gas tax bills were
proper given that he rose to speak on a point of personal privilege.
The president said that points of personal privilege were just that. Inquiries were
appropriate but senators are not permitted to question how other senators feel or how they
want to or wish to vote or not vote.
Rell, March 13, 1998.
42
S 82
SECTION 21 -- PUBLIC HEARING
21-1.1
PETITIONED BILL (JR 8; 9) (
Formerly SP 198
)
The bill prohibited the use of steel-jawed leg hold traps in the state. On a roll call vote, the
Environment Committee's unfavorable report was overturned. A senator raised a point of order that
the bill was not properly before the Senate because it had no public hearing.
The president ruled the point not well taken. Public hearings were not required for
unfavorable reports because if public hearings had to be held on petitioned bills, committee
chairmen could circumvent the petition process simply by never holding a hearing on the
bill.
O'Neill, April 22, 1980.
21-1.2
SUBSTITUTE BILL; GERMANENESS (
Formerly SP 199
)
The substitute bill increased several state taxes effective April 1. A senator raised a point
of order that it was improperly before the Senate because it had not had a public hearing and was
not germane to the subject of the original bill on which the hearing was held. The original house
bill had placed a statutory limit on the state's total bonded indebtedness. That bill had a hearing
and the substitute had been reported out four days later. The substitute was not germane to the
original so there should have been a second hearing (JR 15;
Mason
402).
The bill's proponent argued that, traditionally, substitute bills are never given new
hearings and that the original bill dealt with taxation.
The president ruled the point not well taken because the substitute was germane to
the original.
The ruling was appealed and sustained.
Fauliso, March 31, 1983.
SECTION 22 -- QUORUM
22-1.1
QUORUM PRESENT (
Formerly SP 200
)
A senator requested the president to rule on the presence of a quorum, there being 18
senators in the chamber and the president in the chair.
The president ruled a quorum was present, although he was in the chair and not
voting.
Doocy, February 1965.
50
S 83
SECTION 23 -- RECESS
23-1.1
RECESS DURING VOTE (
Formerly SP 201
)
While a rising vote was being counted, a senator moved for a recess. A second senator
rose to a point of order that no motion for a recess could be entertained while a vote was in
progress.
The president ruled the point well taken.
Shephard, 1941.
SECTION 24 -- RECOMMITTAL
24-1.1
DEBATABLE MOTION (
Formerly SP 204
)
A senator requested a ruling on whether a motion to recommit was debatable.
The president ruled that it was.
Doocy, 1963.
24-1.2
BUDGET BILL (
Formerly SP 203
)
The president ruled that an amendment to the revenue projections in the budget bill was
out of order. The ruling was appealed and sustained. A senator moved to recommit the bill to the
Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee so that committee could revise the revenue
projections on which the budget was based. Another senator raised a point of order that the
motion to recommit was out of order as the budget bill had been reported out of Appropriations
and had never been to the Finance Committee.
The president ruled the point well taken and the motion out of order.
The first senator changed his motion to a motion to refer the bill to the Finance
Committee.
Fauliso, May 19, 1987.
24-1.3
DEBATE ON, CONDUCT OF (
Formerly SP 202
)
A senator moved to recommit a bill. Another senator objected and stated his reasons. A
third senator said that the opponent of the motion did not understand the bill and that, rather than
reading the bill himself, he was taking his cue from the ranking member of the Finance
Committee.
The president ruled that the motion to recommit was debatable only with respect the
appropriateness of the recommittal. The main question was not open for debate. In addition,
he cautioned senators to discuss the issue and avoid personalities.
The third senator argued that he had not engaged in personalities but merely reported
what was happening on the Senate floor.
The president reiterated that it was improper debate to cast aspersions on a senator
for conferring with a colleague. He again asked all senators to confine their remarks to the
motion to recommit.
Fauliso, May 21, 1987.
51
S 84
RECOMMITTAL -----
Continued
24-1.4
FINAL ACTION; REINTRODUCTION OF SAME ISSUE IN
AMENDMENT IS OUT OF ORDER (
Formerly SP 205
)
The bill concerned penalties for the sale or possession of controlled substances and for
money laundering. A senator introduced Senate "A," an amendment to the death penalty statute
that was identical to a bill the Senate had recommitted to the Judiciary Committee earlier in the
session. A senator raised a point of order that the amendment was improper because the Senate
had taken final action on the issue by voting to recommit the earlier death penalty bill to
Judiciary after that committee's reporting deadline. Under Senate rules, no question that has been
finally disposed of may be brought before the Senate again in the same session (
Mason
65).
The amendment's proponents argued that the earlier vote to recommit the bill had been a
procedural action and that the substance of the amendment had not been finally decided.
Therefore, it was permissible to introduce it as an amendment.
The president pro tempore ruled the point well taken. Under the rules,
recommitting a bill to committee after its reporting deadline was final action. Therefore,
Senate "A" was out of order.
The ruling was appealed and sustained.
Larson, May 26, 1987.
SECTION 25 -- RECONSIDERATION
25-1.1
RECONSIDER TWICE (SR 26) (
Formerly SP 220
)
A senator pointed out that, a motion to reconsider the bill having been previously acted
upon, a second motion to reconsider the same bill could not be entertained under the Senate
rules.
The president gave his opinion that, the bill having been reconsidered once, another
motion to reconsider it could not be entertained unless there was an appreciable change in
the bill between the two motions.
Shepard, 1941.
25-1.2
RECONSIDER AFTER CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT (SR 26)
(
Formerly SP 219
)
A bill had been passed by the Senate with three amendments. The House had passed one
of the amendments, but had rejected the other two. The Senate insisted on these two
amendments. After a conference committee, a senator moved that one of the amendments be
reconsidered. Another senator inquired whether the motion constituted a second reconsideration
of the amendment, contrary to the rules.
The president ruled that the motion to reconsider was in order in that the action
taken by the Senate in insisting on its amendments did not constitute a first
reconsideration.
Killian, 1978.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
