Previous Question and limiting debate

[J. J.]

A resolution, with no preamble, is pending.

An amendment is offered and is is pending.

As the amendment is being debated, a member moves, "That at 9:30 AM debate be closed and the resolution be put." The motion is seconded, at it becomes pending.

Another member moves the Previous Question on all pending questions. It is adopted.

Is a vote needed for the motion to limit debate? The assembly has already said that it will be voting immediately on all pending questions.

If no vote is needed, what page is it on in RONR?

[Larry Cisar]

A resolution, with no preamble, is pending.

An amendment is offered and is is pending.

As the amendment is being debated, a member moves, "That at 9:30 AM debate be closed and the resolution be put." The motion is seconded, at it becomes pending.

Another member moves the Previous Question on all pending questions. It is adopted.

Is a vote needed for the motion to limit debate? The assembly has already said that it will be voting immediately on all pending questions.

If no vote is needed, what page is it on in RONR?

No vote needed. Page 190, lines 18 to 25.

[Tim Wynn]

A resolution, with no preamble, is pending.

An amendment is offered and is is pending.

As the amendment is being debated, a member moves, "That at 9:30 AM debate be closed and the resolution be put." The motion is seconded, at it becomes pending.

Another member moves the Previous Question on all pending questions. It is adopted.

Is a vote needed for the motion to limit debate? The assembly has already said that it will be voting immediately on all pending questions.

If no vote is needed, what page is it on in RONR?

No, it becomes irrelevant.

[Tim Wynn]

No vote needed. Page 190, lines 18 to 25.

This reference speaks of an unexhausted order for limiting debate, I don't think it answers J.J.'s question about a pending motion.

[J. J.]

No vote needed. Page 190, lines 18 to 25.

Ah, it doesn't actually say that on that page; that's where I'm running into a problem. Why take a vote on something already superseded?

Once the vote under the Previous Question is taken, it is too late to Reconsider. The first vote would be on the motion to limit debate, if that is the first vote.

[J. J.]

This reference speaks of an unexhausted order for limiting debate, I don't think it answers J.J.'s question about a pending motion.

Limit debate was the immediate pending question prior to the ordering of the Previous Question (PQ), but the motion to limit debate was never disposed of. If not dropped, it will be first vote ordered under the Previous Question.

PQ could be moved on just some of those questions, Limits of Debate and the amendment, and it would make sense to vote on Limits of Debate.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A resolution, with no preamble, is pending.

An amendment is offered and is is pending.

As the amendment is being debated, a member moves, "That at 9:30 AM debate be closed and the resolution be put."

The motion is seconded, at it becomes pending.

This is the motion "LIMIT DEBATE."

(Let's label it the "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" motion.)

So, this is the immediately pending question.

Another member moves the Previous Question on all pending questions.

It is adopted.

This halts any amendment and debate on the motion LIMIT DEBATE, and everything else below it.

Now that

(a.) amendments are closed, and

(b.) debate is closed,

you now must vote on "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE."

If the vote on "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE." negative,

then "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" is defeated,

and the ordinary cascade downward begins,

i.e., to dispose of the

(a.) primary amendment;

(b.) main motion.

. . . as you fulfill the successful "PREVIOUS QUESTION".

i.e.:

• No amendments.

• No debate.

Is a vote needed for the motion to limit debate?

Yes.

Your "PQ" (upon adoption) only halts two things: AMENDMENT and DEBATE.

You have adopted nothing regarding whether the "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" motion is the "will of the assembly" yet.

You only know "the will of the assembly" is to HALT AMENDMENT (and HALT DEBATE, if it were a debatable motion).

***

You say "PQ" was adopted.

Nonetheless, let's look at both scenarios.

• IF "PQ" HAD FAILED:

then, the the pending order for "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" is STILL PENDING.

Since it is still pending, it is STILL AMENDABLE

(but the motion never was DEBATABLE, so this aspect is not relevant).

Of course you will have to vote on it. - It is the immediately pending question.

This is trivial, and not the interesting scenario.

• IF "PQ" IS ADOPTED:

then, the ability to AMEND the "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" is halted.

But "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" itself is not yet adopted, nor rejected.

You will have to vote on the "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" motion.

If "9:30 LIMIT DEBATE" is adopted, then you won't reach the AMENDMENT and MAIN MOTION.

Once you get an affirmative "PQ" link in the master chain, you risk never fulfilling the cascade downward.

The assembly has already said that it will be voting immediately on all pending questions.

Not necessary VOTE all pending questions, but only RISK VOTING (or risk REACHING) all pending questions.

Once the voting begins, you cannot be sure, because any affirmative vote running down the cascade risks interrupting 100% fulfillment of the cascade downward.

You don't don't know if you will REACH the Main Motion, because of ALL THE SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS possible.

(Here, only the AMENDMENT is the subsidiary motion; but it could have been the full complement of subsidiary motions which were pending, in theory. You might have POSTPONED it or COMMITTEED it, had those subsidiary motions been links in the master chain downward.

Once you COMMIT it or POSTPONE it, then you'll never REACH (a.) primary amendment; (b.) main motion.

Conclusion:

"PREVIOUS QUESTION ON ALL PENDING QUESTIONS" is not a guarantee that you will reach 100% of all pending questions.

Instead, "PQ", once adopted, only does two things:

(1.) halts amendments

(2.) halts debate.

You still have to decide, i.e., vote up/down, if you will adopt/reject all those things which cannot be amended/debated.

***

It never promised you a rose garden - uh, I mean, it never promised you that you get to vote on everything pending.

[Matt Schafer]

I've read Sections 15 and 16 again, and read the other responses. I don't see anything that allows the assembly to skip over the motion to Limit Debate once the Previous Question has been ordered on all pending questions. So it seems that you need to take the vote.

However, common sense would say that the vote to Limit Debate is pointless, so you shouldn't need to take that vote, because (a) if it is defeated, you vote on the next motion in the order of precedence; or ( if it is adopted, the Previous Question will supersede the order to Limit Debate, so you vote on the next motion in the order of precedence. The conditions to exhaust the order for Previous Question are the same as those to exhaust the order to Limit Debate. The conditions to Reconsider an affirmative vote for PQ and LD are slightly different, but that doesn't matter because the order for the Previous Question will supersede that to Limit Debate as soon as Limit Debate is adopted. So it seems to me that once the Previous Question is ordered on all pending questions, the end result is identical whether the motion to Limit Debate is adopted or not.

Of course, if the motion for the Previous Question does not include all pending motions, then the vote on Limit Debate does make sense. That wasn't part of the original question, but is worth mentioning.

[J. J.]

I think I agree with Matt and Kim.

It, to me, was just a weird situation where you are voting to limit debate on a string of motions that now cannot be debated.

[Dan Honemann]

A resolution, with no preamble, is pending.

An amendment is offered and is is pending.

As the amendment is being debated, a member moves, "That at 9:30 AM debate be closed and the resolution be put." The motion is seconded, at it becomes pending.

Another member moves the Previous Question on all pending questions. It is adopted.

Is a vote needed for the motion to limit debate? The assembly has already said that it will be voting immediately on all pending questions.

If no vote is needed, what page is it on in RONR?

Yes, a vote must be taken on the motion to limit debate, and if this motion is adopted, debate will resume subject to the order that at 9:30 AM debate will be closed and the resolution will then be put.

I am aware of the fact that this may put me at odds with the answer given to question No. 70 in AIP's 1982 Parliamentary Opinions, but so be it.

[Trina]

I've read Sections 15 and 16 again, and read the other responses. I don't see anything that allows the assembly to skip over the motion to Limit Debate once the Previous Question has been ordered on all pending questions. So it seems that you need to take the vote.

However, common sense would say that the vote to Limit Debate is pointless, so you shouldn't need to take that vote, because (a) if it is defeated, you vote on the next motion in the order of precedence; or (B) if it is adopted, the Previous Question will supersede the order to Limit Debate, so you vote on the next motion in the order of precedence.

....

I think the order of events makes a difference. If the limit on debate were already in place when previous question was raised, then the p. 190 citation (ll. 20-23) applies. However, the motion to limit debate was still pending in this case when PQ came up, so the interaction of previous question with the motion to limit debate is different than the interaction of PQ with an order to limit debate.

I do wonder how many real-life assemblies would process this correctly; it certainly sounds confusing.

[J. J.]

I think the order of events makes a difference. If the limit on debate were already in place when previous question was raised, then the p. 190 citation (ll. 20-23) applies. However, the motion to limit debate was still pending in this case when PQ came up, so the interaction of previous question with the motion to limit debate is different than the interaction of PQ with an order to limit debate.

I do wonder how many real-life assemblies would process this correctly; it certainly sounds confusing.

This was inspired by a question related to a high school group, but it was even more complicated.

[Tim Wynn]

Yes, a vote must be taken on the motion to limit debate, and if this motion is adopted, debate will resume subject to the order that at 9:30 AM debate will be closed and the resolution will then be put.

I am aware of the fact that this may put me at odds with the answer given to question No. 70 in AIP's 1982 Parliamentary Opinions, but so be it.

Great. This means I've found another incorrect question on the RP exam.

(Happy Halloween )

[Tim Wynn]

If two thirds of members want to order the PQ on only the motion to limit debate, wouldn't/shouldn't one of them just make that motion?

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, a vote must be taken on the motion to limit debate, and if this motion is adopted, debate will resume subject to the order that at 9:30 AM debate will be closed and the resolution will then be put.

I am aware of the fact that this may put me at odds with the answer given to question No. 70 in AIP's 1982 Parliamentary Opinions, but so be it.

For what little it's worth, I tend to agree with you.

[Gary Novosielski]

For what little it's worth, I tend to agree with you.

Me too. In fact I think it's cool, bordering on nifty.

Since the vote on Limit to 9:30 occurs after the vote on PQ, it suggests that, with full knowledge of the PQ having been ordered, the assembly, by voting Yes on the motion to Limit, takes advantage of the parliamentary situation and, with open eyes, agrees to debate until 9:30.

Paradoxically, if they vote down the motion to Limit, PQ immediately cuts off debate on the amendment(s) and the main motion in turn.

Good luck to the chair in explaining the effect of a Yes or No vote. "Those in favor of limiting debate, thereby allowing debate to continue, will vote Aye; those opposed to limiting debate, thereby cutting off debate entirely, will vote No.

You gotta love it.

[Rob Elsman]

Me too. In fact I think it's cool, bordering on nifty.

Since the vote on Limit to 9:30 occurs after the vote on PQ, it suggests that, with full knowledge of the PQ having been ordered, the assembly, by voting Yes on the motion to Limit, takes advantage of the parliamentary situation and, with open eyes, agrees to debate until 9:30.

Paradoxically, if they vote down the motion to Limit, PQ immediately cuts off debate on the amendment(s) and the main motion in turn.

Good luck to the chair in explaining the effect of a Yes or No vote. "Those in favor of limiting debate, thereby allowing debate to continue, will vote Aye; those opposed to limiting debate, thereby cutting off debate entirely, will vote No.

You gotta love it.

I think the authors have been careful to be complete and definitive about the cases when a subsidiary motion of lower rank is dropped on account of the adoption of one of higher rank. For example, see RONR (10th ed.), pp. 123, 169. The fact that the authors said nothing about dropping a pending motion to close debate at a certain hour upon the adoption of the Previous Question means, to me, that the lower-ranking motion is not dropped. If it is not dropped, then the adoption of the lower-ranking motion means that the assembly "...decides to do what the motion proposes....", RONR (10th ed.), p. 31.

[Gary Novosielski]

It seems to me that the assembly has decided the question, by a two-thirds vote on the Previous Question, and if the chair puts the question on extending debate, he is asking for confirmation. Yes, the vote requirement on Extend Debate is sufficient to change something previously adopted, but taking the vote on it seems unreasonably redundant. As a supporting example, RONR addresses multiple conflicting motions to restrict debate being pending at the same time, on page 192, l. 1-23.

If the following motions were pending...

1. Previous Question on all pending questions.

2. Previous Question on commit and amend.

3. Commit

4. Amend

5. Main Motion

... they would be voted on in that order, and if number 1 were adopted, the chair would not put number 2, just to verify the will of the assembly. He would skip over the conflicting motion, since the assembly already decided it. I don't see why this logic wouldn't reasonably apply to a conflicting motion to Extend Debate.

Because your argument depends on a "special characteristic" [p.192, l. 1] of the Previous Question, one which it does not share with Limit or Extend. It may be moved multiple times, and the vote is taken on all moved and seconded PQ motions, not according to the order they were moved, but from largest to smallest effect, in the manner of filling blanks. The vote explicitly stops [ibid, l. 21] if one of the motions receives a 2/3 vote.

But Limit or Extend has no such provisions--nor does it need them--because it is amendable. The exact limitations, in all their variety, can be tailored by amendment and voted in by one motion. All except one: cutting off all debate is not reachable by this motion. Doing so "requires a different motion--the Previous Question" [p. 183, l. 34].

There is a temptation to think of Previous Question as just a special case of Limit or Extend, but it really is a different motion with different characteristics. It also has a higher precedence, which is essential, for without it endless amendments to Limit or Extend could never be cut off. It supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order limiting or extending debate, but not a pending motion to that effect (which remains pending but no longer amendable after the Previous Question on it is ordered).

Granted, once the Previous Question has been ordered, it is no longer possible to make subsidiary motions such as Limit or Extend but it is still possible to vote on them if they are already pending.

A very relevant passage regarding this relationship [p. 186, l. 31] notes that adopting one set of limitations does not cause a conflicting set to be out or order, because the 2/3 vote required of all these motions is sufficient to amend something previously adopted. In other words, in case of a conflict, last one voted on counts.

[Tim Wynn]

Because your argument depends on a "special characteristic" [p.192, l. 1] of the Previous Question, one which it does not share with Limit or Extend. It may be moved multiple times, and the vote is taken on all moved and seconded PQ motions, not according to the order they were moved, but from largest to smallest effect, in the manner of filling blanks. The vote explicitly stops [ibid, l. 21] if one of the motions receives a 2/3 vote.

But Limit or Extend has no such provisions--nor does it need them--because it is amendable. The exact limitations, in all their variety, can be tailored by amendment and voted in by one motion. All except one: cutting off all debate is not reachable by this motion. Doing so "requires a different motion--the Previous Question" [p. 183, l. 34].

There is a temptation to think of Previous Question as just a special case of Limit or Extend, but it really is a different motion with different characteristics. It also has a higher precedence, which is essential, for without it endless amendments to Limit or Extend could never be cut off. It supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order limiting or extending debate, but not a pending motion to that effect (which remains pending but no longer amendable after the Previous Question on it is ordered).

Granted, once the Previous Question has been ordered, it is no longer possible to make subsidiary motions such as Limit or Extend but it is still possible to vote on them if they are already pending.

A very relevant passage regarding this relationship [p. 186, l. 31] notes that adopting one set of limitations does not cause a conflicting set to be out or order, because the 2/3 vote required of all these motions is sufficient to amend something previously adopted. In other words, in case of a conflict, last one voted on counts.

With all due respect, I think you missed the point. It's not about what the rules say; it's about what they should say.

[Rob Elsman]

With all due respect, I think you missed the point. It's not about what the rules say; it's about what they should say. So, should RONR include a provision that a pending question for extending debate is dropped after the Previous Question is ordered?

All the detailed theories work well, here, in the lab. However, in the real world, I think it's unlikely that an assembly that just voted to end all debate and amendment is expecting the very next question to be on setting the time for ending debate. (Didn't we just do that?)

Well, we all know that a motion for the Previous Question on all pending questions is in order after the assembly has adopted a motion to close debate at a certain hour. If we followed your logic, wouldn't we say, instead, "Didn't we just do that?"

[Dan Honemann]

With all due respect, I think you missed the point. It's not about what the rules say; it's about what they should say.

With all due respect, I think you have missed the point.

We are concerned that you understand what RONR says; we don't really care at all about what you think it should say.

[Tim Wynn]

we don't really care at all about what you think it should say.

[J. J.]

Yes, a vote must be taken on the motion to limit debate, and if this motion is adopted, debate will resume subject to the order that at 9:30 AM debate will be closed and the resolution will then be put.

I am aware of the fact that this may put me at odds with the answer given to question No. 70 in AIP's 1982 Parliamentary Opinions, but so be it.

I didn't remember #70, but I thought there was some reference to dropping, someplace.

Now, if the motion to limit debate and require the question to put at 9:30 AM is adopted at 8:30 AM, may the Previous Question be moved on all pending questions at 8:45 AM, and if adopted, would the pending questions then be put (in proper sequence) at that time?

[Rob Elsman]

I didn't remember #70, but I thought there was some reference to dropping, someplace.

Now, if the motion to limit debate and require the question to put at 9:30 AM is adopted at 8:30 AM, may the Previous Question be moved on all pending questions at 8:45 AM, and if adopted, would the pending questions then be put (in proper sequence) at that time?

Yes, provided what is said in Standard Characteristics 1 and 2 of the Previous Question is observed. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 190, 191.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... if the motion to limit debate and require the question to put at 9:30 AM is adopted at 8:30 AM,

may the Previous Question be moved on all pending questions at 8:45 AM,

and if adopted,

would the pending questions then be put (in proper sequence) at that time?

Q. Do you mean,

• after ADOPTION of "PQ",

• the cascade down is to start with the topmost pending motion, the AMENDMENT,

• and then, to the MAIN MOTION?

Q. There is no other LIMIT DEBATE motion which is yet-undecided?