DOCSLIB.ORG

Rulings of the Chair Rulings of the Chair

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rulings of the Chair Rulings of the Chair Rulings of the Chair that included explanations 1973–2018 with an introduction by Richard A. Champagne, chief Rulings of the Chair that included explanations 1973–2018 with an introduction by Richard A. Champagne, chief © 2018 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau One East Main Street, Suite 200 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703 www.legis.wi.gov/lrb/ • 608-504-5801 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. Contents Preface ..................................................................................................................................vii What is a ruling of the chair? .......................................................................................vii Which rulings are included here? ................................................................................vii Introduction ..........................................................................................................................ix The Wisconsin Legislature ............................................................................................ x The rulings of the chair and parliamentary law .........................................................xii A final note ................................................................................................................... xvi Part I — Assembly ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 1975 ................................................................................................................................. 1 1977 ................................................................................................................................. 3 1979 ................................................................................................................................19 1981 ................................................................................................................................21 1983 ................................................................................................................................26 1985 ................................................................................................................................26 1987 ................................................................................................................................27 1989 ............................................................................................................................... 28 1991 ................................................................................................................................29 1995 ................................................................................................................................29 1997 ................................................................................................................................33 1999 ............................................................................................................................... 38 2001 ................................................................................................................................44 2003 ................................................................................................................................45 2005 ................................................................................................................................47 2007 ................................................................................................................................49 2009 ................................................................................................................................52 2011 ................................................................................................................................55 2013 ................................................................................................................................61 2015 ................................................................................................................................62 Part II — Senate ...................................................................................................................66 1973 ................................................................................................................................66 1975 ................................................................................................................................79 1977 ................................................................................................................................83 1979 .............................................................................................................................. 101 1981 .............................................................................................................................. 106 1983 .............................................................................................................................. 112 1985 .............................................................................................................................. 115 1987 .............................................................................................................................. 123 1989 .............................................................................................................................. 131 1991 ..............................................................................................................................139 1993 ..............................................................................................................................140 1999 .............................................................................................................................. 142 2001 ..............................................................................................................................144 2003 ..............................................................................................................................149 2005 ..............................................................................................................................150 2011 .............................................................................................................................. 152 2013 .............................................................................................................................. 155 Index ................................................................................................................................... 157 Preface What is a ruling of the chair? “Ruling of the chair” is a term of legislative procedure. Each house of the Wisconsin leg- islature conducts its business according to rules that it determines for itself. Under the rules of each house, a member may rise, during a meeting of the house, to assert that an action is occurring that violates the rules. This is called a “point of order.” The chair must give a ruling on the point of order before that action can continue. If the chair rules the point of order “well taken,” the action must be abandoned. If the chair rules the point of order “not well taken,” the action can continue. A member may appeal the ruling of the chair, in which case the vote of the house determines whether the ruling stands. Rulings of the chair are part of the process by which each house develops its rules. Both the Wisconsin Assembly and the Wisconsin Senate have put their rules in writing, in documents that they have adopted (and periodically amended) by formal vote. But the written rules are subject to interpretation. And beyond what the written rules state, the rules of a house are more properly understood as the practices, traditions, and customs that the house actually follows. Which rulings are included here? This collection presents a subset of the rulings that are recorded in the journals of the Wisconsin Assembly and the Wisconsin Senate for legislative sessions from 1973 to 2018.1 Only those rulings that are accompanied by an explanation are included here. Specifi- cally, 1) every instance in which the chair provided an explanation is included, and 2) every instance in which the member raising the point of order proposed an explanation is included, regardless of whether the chair provided an explanation in response. In addition, every response of the chair to a “parliamentary inquiry” is included. These responses are similar to rulings because parliamentary inquiries are similar to points of order: a member may rise, during a meeting of the house, to ask the chair for an ex- planation of the rules under which an action is occurring; and the chair must respond. No other rulings are included. No information is included about whether a ruling was appealed. ■ 1. It should be noted that there were no assembly rulings accompanied by an explanation during the 2017 legisla- tive session and no such senate rulings during the 2015 and 2017 legislative sessions. This collection also does not contain assembly rulings from the 1973 session because that electronic record no longer exists. Introduction by Richard A. Champagne, chief Parliamentary law is a set of practices and precedents that govern
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Underrepresented Communities Historic Resource Survey Report
    City of Madison, Wisconsin Underrepresented Communities Historic Resource Survey Report By Jennifer L. Lehrke, AIA, NCARB, Rowan Davidson, Associate AIA and Robert Short, Associate AIA Legacy Architecture, Inc. 605 Erie Avenue, Suite 101 Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 and Jason Tish Archetype Historic Property Consultants 2714 Lafollette Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Project Sponsoring Agency City of Madison Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Madison, Wisconsin 53703 2017-2020 Acknowledgments The activity that is the subject of this survey report has been financed with local funds from the City of Madison Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development. The contents and opinions contained in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the city, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the City of Madison. The authors would like to thank the following persons or organizations for their assistance in completing this project: City of Madison Richard B. Arnesen Satya Rhodes-Conway, Mayor Patrick W. Heck, Alder Heather Stouder, Planning Division Director Joy W. Huntington Bill Fruhling, AICP, Principal Planner Jason N. Ilstrup Heather Bailey, Preservation Planner Eli B. Judge Amy L. Scanlon, Former Preservation Planner Arvina Martin, Alder Oscar Mireles Marsha A. Rummel, Alder (former member) City of Madison Muriel Simms Landmarks Commission Christina Slattery Anna Andrzejewski, Chair May Choua Thao Richard B. Arnesen Sheri Carter, Alder (former member) Elizabeth Banks Sergio Gonzalez (former member) Katie Kaliszewski Ledell Zellers, Alder (former member) Arvina Martin, Alder David W.J. McLean Maurice D. Taylor Others Lon Hill (former member) Tanika Apaloo Stuart Levitan (former member) Andrea Arenas Marsha A.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Targeting of Congressmen As a Violation of the Arrest Clause
    Notes Executive Targeting of Congressmen as a Violation of the Arrest Clause Federal law enforcement has expanded to give the executive branch po- tent new weapons for investigating crime.' These new techniques, includ- ing undercover activity and surveillance, have created an unprecedented potential for abuses that not only endanger the constitutional rights of private citizens, but may threaten the balance of power between the exec- utive and Congress. "Executive targeting," as described in this Note, refers to the deploy- ment of law enforcement power against a congressman with intent to dis- credit him, and without prior reasonable cause to suspect that he has com- mitted a crime.2 "Legitimate law enforcement," on the other hand, takes place when the executive suspects that a crime has occurred and deploys the law enforcement power to investigate that crime. Targeting first iden- tifies a victim and then discovers his offenses; legitimate law enforcement first discovers an offense and then seeks to find out whether the actor is criminally responsible.' Although the executive can target any adversary, 1. Responsibility for early federal law enforcement was confined mainly to the United States mar- shals, the Capitol police, and the Coast Guard. B. REKTOR, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGEN- cIES (passim) (1975). Prohibition and the resultant rise in organized crime expanded federal law enforcement. L. DODD & R. SCHOTT, CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE 29 (1979). See also Note, The Scope of FederalCriminal Jurisdiction Under the Commerce Clause, 1972 U. ILL. L. F. 805, 806-07 (invention and success of automobile an impetus toward expanding federal criminal jurisdiction).
    [Show full text]
  • Making History in Milwaukee Religion and Gay Rights in Wisconsin
    WINTER 2015-2016 ma Vel Phillips: Making History in Milwaukee Religion and Gay Rights in Wisconsin BOOK EXCERPT Milwaukee Mayhem MAKE A PLAN MAKE RENCE "I have proudly contributed to the Wisconsin Historical Society for years. I also created a plan for added legacy support through a bequest in my will. I did this as a sign of my deep appreciation for everything that Society staff and volunteers do to collect, preserve and share Wisconsin's stories." -John Evans, Robert B.L. Murphy Legacy Circle member The above image of the Ames Family Tree is adapted from Wisconsin Historical Society Image #5049 1. A Planned Gift Of Estate ASSetS Can Robert B.L. Murphy Legacy Circle members are Society Offer You Financial Advantages and supporters who planned estate gifts Provide Lasting Support for the Society we hold their pledges in very high rep-^ and respect their enduring commitmen Wisconsin Historical FOUNDATION To ask about joining this distinguished group contact: (608) 261-9364 or [email protected] WISCONSIN MAGAZINE OF HISTORY A Gastronomic Forecast Dire was the clang of plate, of knife and fork. That merciless fell, like tomahawk, to work. WISCONSIN — Dr. Wotcot's Peter Pindar. HISTORICAL CREAM OF TOMATO SOCIETY ROAST TURKEY Director, Wisconsin Historical Society Press Kathryn L. Borkowski NEAPOLITAN ICE CREAM ASSORTED CAKE BENT'S CRAC KERS CHEESE Editorial COFFEE Jane M. De Broux, Sara Phillips, Elizabeth Wyckoff From the Maennerchor Managing Editor Diane T. Drexler First Tenor First Bass CHAS. HOEBEL JACOB ESSER FRANK C. BLIED HERMAN GAERTNER Image Researcher WJYl. JOACHIM John H. Nondorf Second Tenor Second Bass A.
    [Show full text]
  • He Wisconsin Light
    VOLUMEVOLUME TEN, TEN, NO.23—November NO.23-November 06 06— November-November 20, 20,1997-Issue 1997—Issue 243 243 Give the People Light and they will find their own way. he Wisconsin Light Join Us In Celeb November 6, 6,1997-November 1997—November 19, 19,1997-WISCONSIN 1997—WISCONSIN LIGHT LIGIIT-2-2 10`lollh Anniversary Issue Issue themed productions, but supports LGBT sivegive publicpuunc policypohcy are richtsrights -whichwhich we all Madison's LGBT Past Leads toto thethe FutureFuture writers,#e#,a¥t#C£Fts:dEc)¥ari¥ItsLGBT actors and technicians. deserve. Through these and other LGBT contri- We will advocate for domestic partner- By De Ette Tomlinson son to find a venue isolated enough for bulT#s:givMthfr%nanhads#ceromLeGPTtrencondsiei:butions, Madison has become a trendset- ship benefits for the State employees' in- Madison has a history of progressive conservatives to try to control the public ting community for LGBT people in surance pool, which would help people activism that spans decades. But during hearing process. Even so, Madison resi- k8en9:Twtrtirw:SGE?firpstpe°fiete£America. Wisconsin was the first state to not only working for the state, but who the past ten years, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual §o¥Ogm§ris*ii:t£:sL:ai:jla%o¥£urn:fi¥dents outnumbered all other Wisconsin pass a law protecting Gay rights, and work for municipalities like Madison that and Transgender people have been build- constituentsconstifuents whowho attendedattended the hearing, and R£:aisaonha#asprfi%Cirfgthgyfirsi#a'esan£Madison was one of the first cities in participate in the State benefits pool.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rights of Legislators and the Wrongs of Interpretation: a Further Defense of the Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Rules
    MCGINN1 06/04/98 1:32 PM Essay THE RIGHTS OF LEGISLATORS AND THE WRONGS OF INTERPRETATION: A FURTHER DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATIVE SUPERMAJORITY RULES JOHN O. MCGINNIS† MICHAEL B. RAPPAPORT†† In 1995, the House of Representatives adopted a rule that re- quires a three-fifths majority of those voting to pass an increase in in- come tax rates.1 More than two years later, debate continues over a rule whose constitutionality has been controverted in Congress, in the courts, and in academia. Although a majority of the House passed the three-fifths rule again in 1997,2 several Representatives challenged its constitutionality in court.3 In the academic debate, the latest entry is Rights of Passage: Majority Rule in Congress by Jed Rubenfeld.4 Professor Rubenfeld claims that the three-fifths rule † Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School. †† Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. The authors would like to thank Larry Alexander, Carl Auerbach, Stuart Benjamin, John Duffy, Michael Herz, Shaun Martin, Michael Ramsey and Erela Katz Rappaport for their comments and assistance. 1.See H.R. Res. 6, 104th Cong. §106(a) (1995), reprinted in CONSTITUTION, JEFFERSON’S MANUAL, AND RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, H.R. DOC. No. 103-342, at 658 (1995) (Rule XXI(5)(c)). 2.See H.R. Res. 5, 105th Cong. §106(a) (1997) (re-adopting Rule XXI(5)(c) with minor modifications, but not changing the three-fifths requirement); RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 105th Cong., Rule XXI(5)(c) (1997), available at <http://lcweb.loc.gov/ global/legislative/hrules/hrulestoc.html>.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: a Defense
    The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense John 0. McGinnist and Michael B. Rappaporttt INTRODUCTION On the first day of the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a rule that requires a three-fifths majority of those voting to pass an increase in income tax rates.' This three-fifths rule had been publicized during the 1994 congressional elections as part of the House Republicans' Contract with America. In a recent Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich, seventeen well-known law professors assert that the rule is unconstitutional.3 They argue that requiring a legislative supermajority to enact bills conflicts with the intent of the Framers. They also contend that the rule conflicts with the Constitution's text, because they believe that the Constitution's specific supermajority requirements, such as the requirement for approval of treaties, indicate that simple majority voting is required for the passage of ordinary legislation.4 t Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School. tt Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. The authors would like to thank Larry Alexander, Akhil Amar, Carl Auerbach, Jay Bybee, David Gray Carlson, Lawrence Cunningham, Neal Devins, John Harrison, Michael Herz, Arthur Jacobson, Gary Lawson, Nelson Lund, Erela Katz Rappaport, Paul Shupack, Stewart Sterk, Eugene Volokh, and Fred Zacharias for their comments and assistance. 1. See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EFFECTIVE FOR ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS (Jan. 4, 1995) [hereinafter RULES] (House Rule XXI(5)(c)); see also id. House Rule XXI(5)(d) (barring retroactive tax increases). 2. The rule publicized in the Contract with America was actually broader than the one the House enacted.
    [Show full text]
  • Amend by Striking out “June 30” and Inserting “July 28.” Recess for 15 Minutes
    UIL Capital Conference Presented by AT&T Conference Center Kirk Overbey, PRP June 30, 2015 [email protected] ° Kirk Overbey: ° Professional Registered Parliamentarian ° Parliamentarian, Texas State Board of Education ° Former President, Texas State Association of Parliamentarians ° Masters degrees in engineering and business ° Judge for Parliamentary Team Competitions ▪ FBLA, FCCLA, HOSA & SkillsUSA ▪ State and national level 2 } National Assoc. of Parliamentarians } organized in 1930 } Promotes the Study and Teaching of the Principles of Parliamentary Law } Credentialing: Registered Parliamentarian and Professional Registered Parliamentarian } Texas State Assoc. of Parliamentarians } organized in 1955 } Local Units } Austin, Beaumont, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Galveston, Houston, San Antonio, and Tyler 3 4 ° Parliamentary Procedure, as we use it today, is of English origin ° The term derives from the English Parliament ° Saxon invasions during 5th and 6th century introduced a democratic style of government at the village level ° The Norman Conquest of 1066 eventually had to recognize the strong English traditions 5 ° Magna Carta, 1215 ° The king cannot levy a tax without permission of the barons ° No other European king had this restriction ° By the 1400s . ° Parliament would not levy a tax, until it had aired its grievances before the king ° Grievances evolved into legislation (agreements with the king) ° “Grievance before Supply” was the method 6 ° Each American colony practiced it ° First in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1619 ° Then in Plymouth town meetings, 1621 ° And for the next 150 years ° Colonists viewed themselves as Englishmen with all the rights of Englishmen ° Continental Congress used the same procedure as the House of Commons from 1775 to 1789 7 ° Thomas Jefferson ° writes first American parliamentary manual, 1801 ° Luther Cushing ° writes first manual for ordinary assemblies, 1844 ° Writes first manual for state legislatures, 1856 ° Henry M.
    [Show full text]
  • Legisbrief a QUICK LOOK INTO IMPORTANT ISSUES of the DAY
    LegisBrief A QUICK LOOK INTO IMPORTANT ISSUES OF THE DAY JAN 2019 | VOL. 27, NO. 3 Did You Know? • A state legislative body possesses inherent powers of self-protection, according to Mason’s Decorum in Debate: Manual of Legislative Procedure. • Mason’s Manual A Short Primer states that every BY BRENDA ERICKSON • “In a broader sense, it embraces everything governmental body which is said in the house by members, has an inherent right Parliamentarian Hugh Cannon wrote that “one’s whether upon a question pending, or in to regulate its own introduction to parliamentary procedure can be reference to any other proceeding, matter, or procedure, subject confusing and mystifying. The language is new, business whatever.” to provisions of the even strange. The process is very different from constitution or other the way in which people ordinarily discuss matters n Why is debate regulated by controlling authority. parliamentary rules? • Provisions of the may feel that you are in the middle of the process In his book, “Lawmaking and the Legislative U.S. Constitution and beforeand make you decisions even know in howtheir tohome start.” or office. You Process,” former NCSL staffer Tommy Neal wrote, 49 state constitutions This LegisBrief is designed to help readers gain a “The legislative process, on paper, is a mechanical specifically grant the better understanding of one legislative parliamen- process. There are many variations from state to right to determine tary process—decorum in debate. state but it’s basically the same in all states as well the rules of as in the U.S. Congress. What makes it different proceedings to the n What is debate? from a machine is the interaction of legislators, and chambers of their their personalities, who were elected to make the respective legislative debate in two ways: laws for your state.” bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Pillars of the Statehouse
    22 | LEGISLATIVE STAFF Pillars of the Statehouse Legislative clerks and secretaries enforce the rules, record proceedings, and this year, celebrate the 70th anniversary of their professional staff network. BY Angela Andrews hief clerks and secretaries may be few in number, but they’re mighty in stature. They were the first type of legislative staff and are the backbone of a legisla- tive chamber. They serve as parliamentarians, chief administrative officers and record-keepers. They over- see the legislative process and ensure its rules, tradi- Ctions and practices are followed. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries (ASLCS), the professional organiza- tion for these legislative staff members. As their jobs have grown in complexity and expanded in responsibilities, it’s clear the organization has not only provided great professional develop- Clerk of the ment opportunities, but personal support as well. House of Karen Wadsworth, clerk of the New Hamp- Representatives shire House of Representatives since 1994, says Karen Wadsworth the organization is like family with coast-to- New Hampshire country that you can call in a moment’s notice to coast connections. “When most people see that your job title get professional advice,” says Patsy Spaw, sec- is clerk, they think it’s someone ringing up an retary of the Texas Senate and immediate past order at 7-Eleven. It’s nice to be part of a group staff chair of NCSL. “I’ve had the opportunity that understands exactly what I do and that has to be mentored by, and rub shoulders with, the the knowledge to answer my parliamentary best of the best who care about your professional questions,” she says.
    [Show full text]
  • BUILDING THEIR DREAM HOME Dino Maniaci & Jason Hoke
    SPECIAL: HOME & GARDEN our lives Experts Share Latest Trends | Spring Planning Ideas March LGBT IMMIGRATION RIGHTS & April Congressman Mark Pocan and Representative JoCasta Zamarripa 2014 ol on the issue’s impact in both Washington and Wisconsin Madison’s LGBT&XYZ Magazine BUILDING THEIR DREAM HOME Dino Maniaci & Jason Hoke OURLIVESMADISON.COM >> Connect Our Community >> FACEBOOK.COM/OURLIVESMAGAZINE EAD MAN D ALKING WAn American Masterpiece Music by Jake Heggie Opera Libretto by Terrence McNally n P o r Based on the novel by Sister Helen Prejean s e i m d i a e r April 25 & 27, 2014 | Overture Hall M e A Sung in English with projected text “Dead Man Walking makes the most concentrated impact of any piece of American music theater since West Side Story.” – The Guardian (London) Since its premiere in 2000, Dead Man Walking has become a modern classic, one of the most important, powerful operas ever written. Based on Sister Helen Prejean’s book that inspired the movie of the same name, it tells of a nun’s journey as the spiritual advisor of a convicted murderer on Louisiana’s death row. From its shocking beginning to its emotionally searing final scene, this opera changes everyone who encounters it. Its stunning score and intense story combine into a work that “must be reckoned something of a masterpiece – a gripping, enormously skillful marriage of words and music to tell a story of love, suffering and spiritual redemption” (San Francisco Chronicle). Starring Daniela Mack, Michael Mayes, and Susanne Mentzer Conducted by John DeMain | Directed by Kristine McIntyre Extending the Stage: Madison Opera is partnering with several organizations to present an array of activities in March and April.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Parliamentary Procedure Don Sikkink
    St. Cloud State University theRepository at St. Cloud State Communication Studies Faculty Publications Department of Communication Studies 1-1986 Understanding Parliamentary Procedure Don Sikkink Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cmst_facpubs Part of the Interpersonal and Small Group Communication Commons, Organizational Communication Commons, and the Social Influence and Political Communication Commons Recommended Citation Sikkink, Don, "Understanding Parliamentary Procedure" (1986). Communication Studies Faculty Publications. 9. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cmst_facpubs/9 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication Studies at theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNDERSTANDING PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE Don Sikkink St. Cloud, Minnesota January 1986 2 Acknowledgements I want to acknowledge that it was A. R. Christensen's assignment thirty years ago to teach the required course in parliamentary procedure at South Dakota State University that initiated my study of a topic area that has continued to fascinate me. I also wish to note that many of my early ideas in parliamentary practices came from conversations with Wayne Hoogestraat and resulted in a co-authored book called Modern Parliamentary Practices. And of course the students in my classes and workshops deserve thanks. Their puzzlement, their questions and those "wild" practice sessions of "The Society for the Improvement of Just About Everything" or "The Society to Study Great Issues" did much to clarify my own ideas about this decision making system.
    [Show full text]
  • Stare Decisis, Majority Rule and the Mischief of Quorum Requirements Jonathan Remy Nash
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers 2008 The aM jority that Wasn't: Stare Decisis, Majority Rule and the Mischief of Quorum Requirements Jonathan Remy Nash Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere. Recommended Citation Jonathan Nash, "The aM jority that Wasn't: Stare Decisis, Majority Rule and the Mischief of Quorum Requirements" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 227, 2008). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 227 THE MAJORITY THAT WASN’T: STARE DECISIS, MARJORITY RULE AND THE MISCHIEF OF QUORUM REQUIREMENTS Jonathan Remy Nash THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2008 This paper can be downloaded without charge at the Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. Draft of July 17, 2008 The Majority That Wasn’t: Stare Decisis, Majority Rule, and the Mischief of Quorum Requirements Jonathan Remy Nash† In this Paper, I consider the question of precedential value in settings in which a case is decided by a majority of judges hearing a case but less than a majority of judges authorized to decide the case—a situation I refer to as a “minority majority.” In analyzing the question of treatment of minority majorities, the Paper makes three broad contributions to the literature.
    [Show full text]