DOCSLIB.ORG

Supermajority Rule in the US Senate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supermajority Rule in the US Senate -S JRMES M>O050sLecUe Supermajority Rule in the U.S. Senate David R. Mayhew, YaleUniversity For this occasion, I decided to tackle a Automaticfailure for bills not reach- have it rough today, they used to have topic of, I hope, some historicaland ing the 60 mark.That is the current it, if anything,rougher. Why worry? theoreticalinterest, of currentpolicy Senate practice,and in my view it has But was the past really like that? I importanceand one that might have in- arousedsurprisingly little interestor for one doubt it. This is a general im- terestedJames Madison.l That topic is concern among the public or even in pression.Across a wide range of issues, supermajorityrule in the U.S. Senate- political science.3It is treatedas matter- I doubt that the Senate of past genera- that is, the need to win more than a of-fact. One might ask: What ever hap- tions had any anti-majoritarianbarrier as simple majorityof senatorsto pass pened to the value of majorityrule? concrete,as decisive, or as consequen- laws. Great checker and balancer This is a complicatedquestion, but I tial as today's rule of 60. If anything, though Madison was, this featureof would guess that one reason for the floor majoritiesseem to have had it eas- Americaninstitutional life would proba- lack of interestor concern is an impres- ier. Consideroff the top, for example, bly have surprisedhim and might have sion of the past. If majorityrule is in the big tariff bills that often fired party distressedhim. principlethe preferredstandard, condi- passions and dominatedcongressional But we certainlyhave it today fili- tions may be bad in the Senate today politics from the 1820s throughthe busters,threatened filibusters, and the but weren't they even worse in the 1930s. Often, those bills cleared the three-fifthscloture requirement that, ex- past? After all, the cloture rule called Senate by sliver-smallmajorities, and cept on budgetingand a few other mat- for an even higher two-thirdsvote be- there does not seem to be much sign ters, dog the legislative process. The 60- tween 1917 and 1975 (that would mean that policy minoritiesenjoyed muscular votes barrierhas become hard contextual 67 senatorstoday, not 60). Some politi- options on them in the Senate that they fact for the press, as in WashingtonPost cal scientists are hypothesizingthe exis- lacked in the House (Schicklerand coverage of recent efforts to repeal the tence of a decisive two-thirds"filibuster Wawro2002, 18-34). inheritancetax and enact anti-cloning pivot" duringthat long middle half of This is an extremely difficult subject legislation:"The vote on the president's the 20th century(Young and Heitshusen on both logic and evidence grounds.It proposalwas 54 to 44, six short of the 2002; Sala 2002). Back before 1917, raises considerationsof anticipatedreac- 60 requiredfor passage"(Dewar and when there was no cloture rule at all, tions, threatenedas well as staged fili- Eilperin2002); "Neitherside appeared how did the Senate manage to enact busters,modification as well as blocking to have the 60 Senate votes needed to any legislation at all? In the face of this of bills, not to mention two centuriesof prevail"(Dewar 2002). Any observerof stylized history,the currentjudgment congressionalhistory. There are various recent Congressescan recite instancesof probablyis: If Senate floor majorities ways of attackingit. (For some, see cloture-rulecasual- Schicklerand ties for example, Wawro2002). But duringthe Democra- it is at least an em- tic Congressof pirical subject. 1993-94 underClin- Readingthe rules of ton, measuresin the the Senate to de- areas of campaign duce what happened financereform, lob- in the past is not bying reform,prod- enough. My course uct liability,striker here is to probe replacement,and into the Senate stimulatingthe recordof one par- economy (Binder ticularpast Con- and Smith 1997, gress with an eye 135; Fisk and for the strategies Chemerinsky1997, and actions of floor 182; Mayhew 1998, majoritiesand floor 274).2 In political minorities.If rules science, Keith Kre- are significant,they biel (1998) has ad- should leave traces dressedthe current in evidence about 60-votes Senate E qsbolbX' strategies. regime elegantly and James Madison I Lecture.2002 JamesMaclison Aword winner David R M The 75th Con- convincinglyin Universitydelivers th leMadison lecture at theAnnual Meeting in Boston.The A/ Aadison award is gress of 1937-38 is termsof a "filibuster giventriennially to a znAmericun politicul scientist who hos modea distinguishedscholarly my choice for ex- pivot." contributionto politic cal science. amination.This is PSOnlinewww.apsanet.org 31 This content downloaded from 128.36.174.30 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:55:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions for three reasons. First, the majority gruesome southernlynchings, a nation- Senate, individualsenators took to an- party's legislative aspirationsduring that wide campaignto enact an anti-lynch- nouncingtheir positions one by one. Congress were unusuallyhigh. Possibly ing bill gained strengthin the 1930s The press offered horseracecoverage no party'shave ever been higher. peaking in 1937-38 (Sitkoff 1978, ch. centeringon which side could reach a FranklinRoosevelt had won a landslide 11). The House passed a bill in 1937, Senate majority that is, 49 votes. The reelection, the New Dealers entertained FDR said he would sign it, and it bet was on FDR the presidentwould a commensurateagenda, and the Repub- reachedthe Senate in January1938 probablyget his Court-packingplan if lican congressionalminority had been with some 70 senatorssaid to favor it he really wanted it but the Senate sta- reduced to 16 senatorsand 89 House (Time,Jan. 24, 1938, 10). But the tistics languishedalong at roughly one- members- lows for a majorparty dur- southernDemocratic senators, spotting a third yes, one-thirdno, and one-third ing the 20th century.In all of American threatto their region's system of white undecided.6 history, this may have been the left's supremacy,expressed "determinationto DuringApril and May (phase two), main chance for a policy breakthrough. preventthe bill ever reaching a vote." the SupremeCourt, evidently reactingto Second, it was widely believed, as the Many lengthy speeches ensued, as in its threateningpolitical environment, Congress began, that if any of the elec- the report:"[Allen] Ellender [D-LA] handeddown landmarkdecisions ap- tive institutionswas to block the New Speaks 4 Days and Goes On." Leader- proving the WagnerAct of 1935, the Dealers' initiativesduring 1937-38, it ship efforts to break the filibusterwere Social SecurityAct of 1935, and other had to be the Senate. The House Demo- lax: "Such rules as might be inconven- previous liberal or New Deal enact- cratic party entirely elected on a ticket ient for filibusterswere not enforced; ments. "Who needs a Court-packing with FDR in 1936 was thoughtto be in all-night or even long-continuedses- plan anymore?"came to be asked on his pocket. (As it happened,this proved sions were not employed"(Burdette Capitol Hill. Considerablesteam went not to be true.) Third, notwithstanding 1965, 198-99). After two weeks, some out of the White House legislative its immense Democraticmajorities, the 20 northernDemocrats nominally favor- drive, which fell below the likely ma- 75th Congressearned a place in history ing the bill signaled that it was time to jority mark in the Senate (Alsop and for blocking bills. Concertedopposition move on as there was "little likelihood Catledge 1938, 135-216).7 in that Congress is not a null topic of breakingthe filibuster."In late Janu- But then in June and July (phase (Mayhew 2000, 110-13, 219-22). ary and mid-February,successive cloture three), Roosevelt stubbornlyinsisted on Here, I will examine three lengthy, motions failed. The southernerscontin- a Court-expansionmeasure anyway, controversial,and well-publicizedleg- ued to obstruct.After seven weeks, the this time settling for one incremental islative drives of that Congress all of Senate voted 58-22 to lay the measure Justice per year (ratherthan six all at which failed. They are FDR's proposal aside. That concludedthe anti-lynching once). On this revised measurethe to pack the SupremeCourt, FDR's pro- drive of 1937-38.4 New Deal forces, led by Majority posal to reorganizethe executive Leader Joseph Robinson (D-AR), branch,and a majoranti-lynching meas- Court-Packing seemed to have a slim Senate majority. ure. The first two of these initiatives That was the informed reading (Alsop were top White House prioritiesin early In early 1937, PresidentRoosevelt, and Catledge 1938, 21743; Baker 1937. Structuralreform of the courts exasperatedby SupremeCourt strike- 1967, 231-34). It was showdown time. and agencies had to come first, the downs of several key New Deal enact- For the still adamantSenate opposition, White House view was, if New Deal ments during 1935-36 and worried any tamperingat all with the size of ambitionsin various policy areas were about more such strikedowns,proposed the SupremeCourt was poison. A vig- to succeed. The anti-lynchingmeasure a bill to authorizethe appointmentof orous filibusterloomed (Alsop and was not a White House or Democratic one additionalJustice for any current Catledge 1938, 248-50). Available for party priority,although it was advanced Justice over the age of 70. As of 1937, participation,according to Senator by congressionalliberals. Obviously,the this would have expandedthe Courtto Wheeler, were 43 senators "readyto civil rights area is an exception to any 15 membersby adding six FDR nomi- fight to the end in seven speaking general speculationthat Senate floor nees. One of the majorcontroversies of teams of five each and with eight sena- majoritiesmay have had it easy in ear- Americanpolitical history ensued (Alsop tors in reserve"(New YorkHeraZd Tri- lier times (Wolfinger1971). Accord- and Catledge 1938; Baker 1967). bune, July 3, 1937, 1). The ringleaders ingly, the inclusion of the anti-lynching Congressionalhandling of the Court- of this coalition, accordingto one ac- drive here, meritedin any case on packingproposal was lengthy and com- count, "constitutedthemselves a sort of groundsof its historicalimportance, will plicated.There were three phases.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Handbook New Mexico Legislature
    COMMITTEE HANDBOOK for the NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE New Mexico Legislative Council Service Santa Fe, New Mexico 2012 REVISION prepared by: The New Mexico Legislative Council Service 411 State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 986-4600 www.nmlegis.gov 202.190198 PREFACE Someone once defined a committee as a collection of people who individually believe that something must be done and who collectively decide that nothing can be done. Whether or not this definition has merit, it is difficult to imagine the work of a legislative body being accomplished without reliance upon the committee system. Every session, American legislative bodies are faced with thousands of bills, resolutions and memorials upon which to act. Meaningful deliberation on each of these measures by the entire legislative body is not possible. Therefore, the job must be broken up and distributed among the "miniature legislatures" called standing or substantive committees. In New Mexico, where the constitution confines legislative action to a specified number of calendar days, the work of such committees assumes even greater importance. Because the role of committees is vital to the legislative process, it is necessary for their efficient operation that individual members of the senate and house and their staffs understand committee functioning and procedure, as well as their own roles on the committees. For this reason, the legislative council service published in 1963 the first Committee Handbook for New Mexico legislators. This publication is the sixth revision of that document. i The Committee Handbook is intended to be used as a guide and working tool for committee chairs, vice chairs, members and staff.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Day of a New Congress: a Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor
    The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor -name redacted- Specialist on the Congress Updated December 19, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL30725 The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor Summary Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution sets a term of office of two years for all Members of the House. One House ends at the conclusion of each two-year Congress, and the newly elected Representatives must constitute a new House at the beginning of the next Congress. Consequently, the House must choose its Speaker and officers and adopt the chamber’s rules of procedure every two years. The Constitution mandates that Congress convene at noon on January 3, unless the preceding Congress by law designated a different day. P.L. 113-201 set January 6, 2015, as the convening date of the 114th Congress. Congressional leaders planned that the 115th Congress would convene January 3, 2017, and that the 116th Congress would convene January 3, 2019, obviating the need for a law to set the date. Although no officers will have been elected when the House first convenes, officers from the previous Congress perform certain functions, such as conducting the election of the Speaker. The House follows a well-established first-day routine. The proceedings include— a call to order by the Clerk of the House; a prayer led by the Chaplain and the Pledge of Allegiance led by the Clerk; a quorum call ordered by the Clerk; the election of the Speaker, ordered by the Clerk and conducted with the assistance of tellers; remarks by the Speaker-elect, followed by his or her swearing-in by the dean of the House; the oath of office for the newly elected and re-elected Members, administered by the Speaker; adoption of the rules of the House for the new Congress; adoption of various administrative resolutions and unanimous consent agreements; and announcement of the Speaker’s policies on certain floor practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: in Brief Name Redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process
    Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief name redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process April 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44819 Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture on Nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Related CRS Products ..................................................................................................................... 3 Contacts Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 4 Congressional Research Service Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Introduction On April 6, 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII to allow a majority of Senators voting, a quorum being present, to invoke cloture on nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before the Senate reinterpreted the rule, ending consideration of nominations to the Supreme Court required a vote of three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators unless there was more than one vacancy). The practical effect of the Senate action on April 6 was to reduce the level of Senate support necessary
    [Show full text]
  • Unanimous Consent Agreements Establishing a 60-Vote Threshold for Passage of Legislation in the Senate
    = 3&3.24:8= 438*39=,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,= &=0*849*=-7*8-41)=+47=&88&,*=4+=*,.81&9.43= .3=9-*=*3&9*= *,&3=:?&33*= >3(-= 3&1>89=43= 43,7*88=&3)=9-*=*,.81&9.;*=74(*88= &>=+,`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= -..3+= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 3&3.24:8= 438*39= ,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,=&=0*849*=-7*8-41)= = :22&7>= The Senate frequently enters into unanimous consent agreements (sometimes referred to as “UC agreements” or “time agreements”) that establish procedures for the consideration of legislation that the Senate is considering or will soon consider. In recent practice, such unanimous consent agreements have sometimes included a provision that would require a 60-vote threshold to be met for amendments or legislation to be considered agreed to, rather than the simple majority ordinarily required. These amendments or measures may be of a controversial nature with the potential for causing a filibuster. By incorporating a 60-vote threshold, such UC agreements avoid the multiple requirements imposed by Senate Rule XXII for invoking cloture, while preserving the same requirement for super-majority support. This report will be updated each session of Congress. 43,7*88.43&1=*8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 3&3.24:8= 438*39= ,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,=&=0*849*=-7*8-41)= = 3974):(9.43= The Senate’s emphasis on individual and minority rights, reflected in both its standing rules and chamber custom,1 can make it challenging for the chamber to achieve its various goals in a timely manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Process Lpbooklet 2016 15Th Edition.Qxp Booklet00-01 12Th Edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1
    LPBkltCvr_2016_15th edition-1.qxp_BkltCvr00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 2:49 PM Page 1 South Carolina’s Legislative Process LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 2 October 2016 15th Edition LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 3 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS The contents of this pamphlet consist of South Carolina’s Legislative Process , pub - lished by Charles F. Reid, Clerk of the South Carolina House of Representatives. The material is reproduced with permission. LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 4 LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 5 South Carolina’s Legislative Process HISTORY o understand the legislative process, it is nec - Tessary to know a few facts about the lawmak - ing body. The South Carolina Legislature consists of two bodies—the Senate and the House of Rep - resentatives. There are 170 members—46 Sena - tors and 124 Representatives representing dis tricts based on population. When these two bodies are referred to collectively, the Senate and House are together called the General Assembly. To be eligible to be a Representative, a person must be at least 21 years old, and Senators must be at least 25 years old. Members of the House serve for two years; Senators serve for four years. The terms of office begin on the Monday following the General Election which is held in even num - bered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
    [Show full text]
  • Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
    Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries A. POINTS OF ORDER § 1. In General; Form § 2. Role of the Chair § 3. Reserving Points of Order § 4. Time to Raise Points of Order § 5. Ð Against Bills and Resolutions § 6. Ð Against Amendments § 7. Application to Particular Questions; Grounds § 8. Relation to Other Business § 9. Debate on Points of Order; Burden of Proof § 10. Waiver of Points of Order § 11. Withdrawal of Points of Order § 12. Appeals B. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES § 13. In General; Recognition § 14. Subjects of Inquiry § 15. Timeliness of Inquiry § 16. As Related to Other Business Research References 5 Hinds §§ 6863±6975 8 Cannon §§ 3427±3458 Manual §§ 627, 637, 861b, 865 A. Points of Order § 1. In General; Form Generally A point of order is in effect an objection that the pending matter or proceeding is in violation of a rule of the House. (Grounds for point of order, see § 7, infra.) Any Member (or any Delegate) may make a point of order. 6 Cannon § 240. Although there have been rare instances in which the Speaker has insisted that the point of order be reduced to writing (5 633 § 1 HOUSE PRACTICE Hinds § 6865), the customary practice is for the Member to rise and address the Chair: MEMBER: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I make a point of order against the [amendment, section, paragraph]. CHAIR: The Chair will hear the gentleman. It is appropriate for the Chair to determine whether the point of order is being raised under a particular rule of the House. The objecting Member should identify the particular rule that is the basis for his point of order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislative Process on the House Floor: an Introduction
    The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction Updated May 20, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov 95-563 The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction Summary The daily order of business on the floor of the House of Representatives is governed by standing rules that make certain matters and actions privileged for consideration. On a day-to-day basis, however, the House can also decide to grant individual bills privileged access to the floor, using one of several parliamentary mechanisms. The standing rules of the House include several different parliamentary mechanisms that the body may use to act on bills and resolutions. Which of these will be employed in a given instance usually depends on the extent to which Members want to debate and amend the legislation. In general, all of the procedures of the House permit a majority of Members to work their will without excessive delay. The House considers most legislation by motions to suspend the rules, with limited debate and no floor amendments, with the support of at least two-thirds of the Members voting. Occasionally, the House will choose to consider a measure on the floor by the unanimous consent of Members. The Rules Committee is instrumental in recommending procedures for considering major bills and may propose restrictions on the floor amendments that Members can offer or bar them altogether. Many major bills are first considered in Committee of the Whole before being passed by a simple majority vote of the House. The Committee of the Whole is governed by more flexible procedures than the basic rules of the House, under which a majority can vote to pass a bill after only one hour of debate and with no floor amendments.
    [Show full text]
  • AFS RR Primer
    Running a Meeting under Robert’s Rules of Order A Primer for AFS Unit Leaders For further information, contact: John Boreman AFS Constitutional Consultant [email protected] Updated: 4 April 2016 Table of Contents Topic Page Order of Business………………………………………………………………..3 Approving Minutes……………………………………………………………...4 Handling Motions………………………………………………………………..5 Types of Motions…………………………………………………………………7 Adjourning………………………………………………………………………… 9 Recording Minutes…………………………………………………………….10 2 Updated: 4 April 2016 Order of Business The AFS Rules provide an order of business for the annual Business Meeting that must be followed and which supersedes the order suggested in Robert’s Rules. For other AFS meetings, Robert’s Rules suggests that the meetings follow the following order of business: 1. Reading the Minutes of the previous meeting [and their approval] 2. Reports of Officers and Standing Committees 3. Reports of Special Committees 4. Special Orders 5. Unfinished Business and General Orders 6. New Business • Note that “Determination of a Quorum” is not part of the formal order of business, because the meeting must have a quorum before any official business is conducted. • “Special Orders” are usually motions or actions carrying over from past meetings, for which the members want to make certain are addressed at the present meeting. Unfinished actions can also be handled under “Unfinished Business.” • Reading of the minutes under the first order of business may be waived if the draft minutes are distributed to the members ahead of the meeting. If the minutes are distributed ahead of time, a motion to dispense with reading of the minutes may be made. This motion must be seconded, is neither debatable nor amendable, and requires a simple majority to pass.
    [Show full text]
  • No Member Is to Come Into the House with His Head Covered, Nor To
    JEFFERSON'S MANUAL § 377±§ 380 a vote given by a Senator on a question relating to his own right to a seat; but the House has never had occasion to proceed so far (V, 5959). No Member is to come into the House with his § 377. Wearing of hats head covered, nor to remove from by Members. one place to another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or re- moving, until he be set down in his place. Scob., 6. Until 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the session continued in the House; but in that year it was abolished by clause 7 of rule XIV. § 378. Adjournment of A question of order may be ad- questions of order. journed to give time to look into precedents. 2 Hats., 118. The Speaker has declined, on a difficult question of order, to rule until he had taken time for examination (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475), and may take a parliamentary inquiry under advise- ment, especially where not related to the pending proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. ÐÐ), but it is conceivable that a case might arise wherein this privilege of the Chair would require approval of the majority of the House, to prevent arbitrary obstruction of the pending business by the Chair. On occasion, the Chair has reversed as erroneous a decision pre- viously made (VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435). The law of Parliament evidently contemplates that the adjournment of a question of order shall be controlled by the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert's Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council Voting
    Robert’s Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council Voting Majority Vote - used in most instances and requires a simple majority of the members voting, excluding those who choose to abstain. The abstentions are asked for to complete the record, not to include them in the count. Two-Thirds Vote - used to overturn a previous action as identified in the Ten Day Notice Policy. Requires two-thirds of those voting to take action, excluding those who choose to abstain. The total number of votes, divided by three, multiplied times two. Fragments are included in the ‘yes’ votes as that is where two-thirds of the vote lies. Note: an action of the membership to overturn a prior action taken at a meeting which was concluded by the Business Committee on behalf of the General Tribal Council, because no quorum was met, falls within the Ten Day Notice Policy requirements. Tie Votes - in the event of a tie, the Chairperson can vote. A tie is identified in Robert’s Rules of Order as an occasion where if the Chair casts a vote, a different outcome will result. The Constitution identifies that the Chair votes “only in the case of a tie.” This has been identified to limit the ability of the Chair to vote to break a tie vote. In the case of a two- thirds vote, where it would change the results of the vote. Point of Order A point of order arises when a member who has the floor is not talking about the subject matter on the agenda before the membership at that time in the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Adjournment
    Chapter 1 Adjournment A. GENERALLY; ADJOURNMENTS OF THREE DAYS OR LESS § 1. In General § 2. Adjournment Motions and Requests; Forms § 3. When in Order; Precedence and Privilege of Motion § 4. In Committee of the Whole § 5. Who May Offer Motion; Recognition § 6. Debate on Motion; Amendments § 7. Voting § 8. Quorum Requirements § 9. Dilatory Motions; Repetition of Motion B. ADJOURNMENTS FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS § 10. In General; Resolutions § 11. Privilege of Resolution § 12. August Recess C. ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE § 13. In General; Resolutions § 14. Procedure at Adjournment; Motions Research References U.S. Const. art. I, § 5 5 Hinds §§ 5359–5388 8 Cannon §§ 2641–2648 Manual §§ 82–84, 911–913 1 VerDate 29-JUL-99 20:28 Mar 20, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 2574 Sfmt 2574 C:\PRACTICE\DOCS\MHP.001 PARL1 PsN: PARL1 §1 HOUSE PRACTICE A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less § 1. In General Types of Adjournments Adjournment procedures in the House are governed by the House rules and by the Constitution. There are: (1) adjournments of three days or less, which are taken pursuant to motion; (2) adjournments of more than three days, which require the consent of the Senate (§ 10, infra); and (3) adjourn- ments sine die, which end each session of a Congress and which require the consent of both Houses. Adjournments of more than three days or sine die are taken pursuant to concurrent resolutions. §§ 10, 13, infra. Adjournment Versus Recess Adjournment is to be distinguished from recess. The House may author- ize a recess under a motion provided in rule XVI clause 4.
    [Show full text]