The more permissive language seemed to have support. Fifty-two legislators voted to reconsider the bill, versus 16 opposed to reconsidering. (Had the nays carried, the bill would have died for good.)
Rep. Chuck Turbiville, R-Deadwood, the measure's principal backer, started to explain the amendment he was offering before being interrupted with a point of order by a legislator who I believe was Rep. Larry Lucas, D-Mission. (I can't be certain here, and the audio feed's not up yet to check. If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll correct and apologize.) Speaker Tim Rave sustained Lucas's objection that Turbiville was discussing an amendment that had not been introduced.
|
Advertisement |
A handful of supporters immediately rose, with Rave recognizing Rep. Tim Rounds, R-Pierre, who moved that Turbiville's amendment be introduced and then yielded his time back to Turbiville to continue explaining the bill.
A little further into the debate, though, Lucas* was recognized and invoked "Rule 5-17." Rave asked the body if Lucas* was supported; a bit more than a dozen lawmakers, mostly Democrats, stood up.
What is rule 5-17? It's a joint rule adopted by both houses of the legislature. You can read all the joint rules here (PDF). Here's the text:
5-17. Motion to delay action on amendments. Final action upon any amendment to a bill or resolution may not be had until one legislative day has intervened, if a request for delay is made and is supported by at least one-fifth of the members. However, no such request is in order during the last fourteen days of the session. This rule cannot be invoked more than two times on the same bill in each house.
One fifth of the House is 14 lawmakers.
Interestingly (and one of the reasons I doubt my entry in my notes that Lucas had raised the procedural obstacles), Lucas voted FOR the original, unamended bill yesterday.


Comments
No comments posted.