Previous Question and Reconsideration

[Rob Elsman]

If one of several pending motions for the Previous Question, RONR (10th ed.), p. 192, ll. 1-23, is adopted, but rejected upon reconsideration, are any of the remaining motions for the Previous Question voted on thereafter, or did they die when the motion for the Previous Question was adopted?

[alanh49]

If one of several pending motions for the Previous Question, RONR (10th ed.), p. 192, ll. 1-23, is adopted, but rejected upon reconsideration, are any of the remaining motions for the Previous Question voted on thereafter, or did they die when the motion for the Previous Question was adopted?

Since the vote is taken first on the motion for the Previous Question that covers the most questions. The other motions for the Previous Question should be voted on just as if the first motion for the Previous Question had just been rejected in the first place without the motion to reconsider.

[David A Foulkes]

If one of several pending motions for the Previous Question, RONR (10th ed.), p. 192, ll. 1-23, is adopted, but rejected upon reconsideration, are any of the remaining motions for the Previous Question voted on thereafter, or did they die when the motion for the Previous Question was adopted?

I think the key phrase is found in line 21, "until one is adopted." I read this to mean that when the several motions for Previous Question are pending, when one of them is adopted, all remaining motions (if any) are then discarded, and the chair would begin putting the question(s) covered by the adopted Previous Question. The motion to Reconsider could only be moved virtually immediately after the chair announces the result on the Previous Question vote, by which time any remaining Previous Question motions are no longer pending.

[Tim Wynn]

If one of several pending motions for the Previous Question, RONR (10th ed.), p. 192, ll. 1-23, is adopted, but rejected upon reconsideration, are any of the remaining motions for the Previous Question voted on thereafter, or did they die when the motion for the Previous Question was adopted?

Line 9-10 says that the procedure resembles filling blanks. When a proposal to fill a blank is adopted and then rejected upon reconsideration, the process continues where it left off -- in other words, the other proposals are considered.

[Dan Honemann]

Since the vote is taken first on the motion for the Previous Question that covers the most questions. The other motions for the Previous Question should be voted on just as if the first motion for the Previous Question had just been rejected in the first place without the motion to reconsider.

I think this is exactly right, and is the result of proper application of the rule on page 313, lines 26-30, as modified by the practice described in the paragraph which begins on page 197, line 33, and ends on page 198, line 9.

If the motion to Reconsider is adopted, the chair will immediately proceed to take the vote on the motion that would order the Previous Question on the next smaller number of motions.

[David A Foulkes]

I think this is exactly right, and is the result of proper application of the rule on page 313, lines 26-30, as modified by the practice described in the paragraph which begins on page 197, line 33, and ends on page 198, line 9.

If the motion to Reconsider is adopted, the chair will immediately proceed to take the vote on the motion that would order the Previous Question on the next smaller number of motions.

This makes good sense. However, when the motion of Previous Question is adopted and the chair announces that result, he "at once states the question on the motion that is then immediately pending." (p. 199 l. 26-27, emphasis added) Thus, by your interpretation, any remaining motions of Previous Question actually remain pending, tucked away in a sort of suspended animation waiting to be called back into service, superseding the immediately pending question. I would have expected them to have been discarded, in a sense, once the assembly had decided on, and adopted, the desired motion of Previous Question they preferred.

[Dan Honemann]

This makes good sense. However, when the motion of Previous Question is adopted and the chair announces that result, he "at once states the question on the motion that is then immediately pending." (p. 199 l. 26-27, emphasis added) Thus, by your interpretation, any remaining motions of Previous Question actually remain pending, tucked away in a sort of suspended animation waiting to be called back into service, superseding the immediately pending question. I would have expected them to have been discarded, in a sense, once the assembly had decided on, and adopted, the desired motion of Previous Question they preferred.

Well, one assumes you're here to learn.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, one assumes you're here to learn.

Every day is an opportunity to learn. If I retire in the evening no smarter than when I arose, it's a day I've likely squandered.

[hmtcastle]

If I retire in the evening no smarter than when I arose, it's a day I've likely squandered.

But let's not confuse knowledge with intelligence. Many with an abundance of the former seem woefully lacking in the latter and, though more rare, I'm sure there are some for whom the situation is reversed.

[David A Foulkes]

But let's not confuse knowledge with intelligence.

Surely the one does not always beget the other, the former seemingly impotent for some.

[Shmuel Gerber]

This makes good sense. However, when the motion of Previous Question is adopted and the chair announces that result, he "at once states the question on the motion that is then immediately pending." (p. 199 l. 26-27, emphasis added) Thus, by your interpretation, any remaining motions of Previous Question actually remain pending, tucked away in a sort of suspended animation waiting to be called back into service, superseding the immediately pending question. I would have expected them to have been discarded, in a sense, once the assembly had decided on, and adopted, the desired motion of Previous Question they preferred.

The point is that when the motion to Reconsider is adopted, you have to consider what the situation was before the Previous Question was ordered, not after. The reason being that the purpose of reconsidering the vote is precisely to undo what was done by it, which in this case was to simultaneously ( a ) order the Previous Question on what it was ordered on and ( b ) reject all other pending proposals for the Previous Question that had not yet been voted on.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, everyone. Confirms my suspicions.