Postponing Recorded Votes

[Guest Johnny]

If a voice vote is taken and a recorded vote is requested, can the recorded votes be postponed until later in the meeting? I observed this practice in the US House and was curious about it.

[Rob Elsman]

If a voice vote is taken and a recorded vote is requested, can the recorded votes be postponed until later in the meeting? I observed this practice in the US House and was curious about it.

There is no rule in RONR corresponding to House Rule XX that gives the Speaker the power to postpone proceedings in certain cases.

[Dan Honemann]

There is no rule in RONR corresponding to House Rule XX that gives the Speaker the power to postpone proceedings in certain cases.

I agree, but Johnny asks an interesting question.

As far as RONR is concerned, I think the answer is no, a motion to Postpone is not in order after a vote on a main motion has been taken by one of the regular methods and then a motion is timely made (and is still pending or has been adopted or rejected, it doesn't matter) to have the vote taken again by a roll-call vote (or ballot vote, or whatever).

[Rob Elsman]

I agree, but Johnny asks an interesting question.

As far as RONR is concerned, I think the answer is no, a motion to Postpone is not in order after a vote on a main motion has been taken by one of the regular methods and then a motion is timely made (and is still pending or has been adopted or rejected, it doesn't matter) to have the vote taken again by a roll-call vote (or ballot vote, or whatever).

I agree with you, unless the main motion is brought back before the assembly upon reconsideration.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree, but Johnny asks an interesting question.

As far as RONR is concerned, I think the answer is no, a motion to Postpone is not in order after a vote on a main motion has been taken by one of the regular methods and then a motion is timely made (and is still pending or has been adopted or rejected, it doesn't matter) to have the vote taken again by a roll-call vote (or ballot vote, or whatever).

Wouldn't a motion to Lay on the Table be in order?

[Rob Elsman]

Wouldn't a motion to Lay on the Table be in order?

No, not in my opinion. The time for "...treating or disposing of a main motion...", RONR (10th ed.), p. 60, ll. 3,4, ends when the voting on the main motion (using a regular method or otherwise) begins.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Wouldn't a motion to Lay on the Table be in order?

No, not in my opinion. The time for "...treating or disposing of a main motion...", RONR (10th ed.), p. 60, ll. 3,4, ends when the voting on the main motion (using a regular method or otherwise) begins.

I think it depends whether the motion to retake the vote is pending or has already been adopted. While it is pending, it would not yield to a motion to Lay on the Table. However, after it is adopted, the situation is such that the (new) vote on the main motion has not yet begun, so I think Lay on the Table would be in order.

[Rob Elsman]

I think it depends whether the motion to retake the vote is pending or has already been adopted. While it is pending, it would not yield to a motion to Lay on the Table. However, after it is adopted, the situation is such that the (new) vote on the main motion has not yet begun, so I think Lay on the Table would be in order.

No, I don't understand the six basic steps in handling a (main) motion, RONR (10th ed.), §4, pp. 31ff, as being reversible.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think it depends whether the motion to retake the vote is pending or has already been adopted. While it is pending, it would not yield to a motion to Lay on the Table. However, after it is adopted, the situation is such that the (new) vote on the main motion has not yet begun, so I think Lay on the Table would be in order.

No, I don't understand the six basic steps in handling a (main) motion, RONR (10th ed.), §4, pp. 31ff, as being reversible.

Not reversible, just repeatable. :-)

[Dan Honemann]

I think it depends whether the motion to retake the vote is pending or has already been adopted. While it is pending, it would not yield to a motion to Lay on the Table. However, after it is adopted, the situation is such that the (new) vote on the main motion has not yet begun, so I think Lay on the Table would be in order.

So why not any other subsidiary motion?

[tctheatc]

If we have voted (voice vote) and the timely call for a recorded vote is made(as the op describes) are we still in the process of voting? As I understand the 1st post and what Dan has followed it with, the vote(ing) is not yet final, a result hasn't been announced. So wouldn't a motion to postpone, or lay on the table, or another(?) be out of order as an interruption to the voting?

[David A Foulkes]

If we have voted (voice vote) and the timely call for a recorded vote is made(as the op describes) are we still in the process of voting? As I understand the 1st post and what Dan has followed it with, the vote(ing) is not yet final, a result hasn't been announced. So wouldn't a motion to postpone, or lay on the table, or another(?) be out of order as an interruption to the voting?

After the result of the vote to take another vote is announced (assuming it is adopted) and before the vote on the (main) motion commences, there is that brief of span of time, even after the chair puts the question but before the first vote is recorded, where this would not be in interruption of the voting process itself.

[Dan Honemann]

If we have voted (voice vote) and the timely call for a recorded vote is made(as the op describes) are we still in the process of voting? As I understand the 1st post and what Dan has followed it with, the vote(ing) is not yet final, a result hasn't been announced. So wouldn't a motion to postpone, or lay on the table, or another(?) be out of order as an interruption to the voting?

I think this may be the point upon which to focus. The result of the first vote was announced, but the result of the voting has not been finalized and the voting process is continuing.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think it depends whether the motion to retake the vote is pending or has already been adopted. While it is pending, it would not yield to a motion to Lay on the Table. However, after it is adopted, the situation is such that the (new) vote on the main motion has not yet begun, so I think Lay on the Table would be in order.

So why not any other subsidiary motion?

Although not identical, this situation appears similar to the one described in the paragraph on pages 204-205 or RONR, under the heading "Laying the pending questions on the table after debate has been closed."

Debate has been ended* and the assembly has ordered a vote on the question, but that vote has not yet occurred, so it is not being interrupted by the motion to Lay on the Table.

* "When a vote is taken a second time for purposes of verification - as when a Division (29) is demanded - debate cannot be resumed except by unanimous consent." (p. 375, ll. 15-18)

[Dan Honemann]

I think it depends whether the motion to retake the vote is pending or has already been adopted. While it is pending, it would not yield to a motion to Lay on the Table. However, after it is adopted, the situation is such that the (new) vote on the main motion has not yet begun, so I think Lay on the Table would be in order.

I agree with the second sentence of this response, since it seems to me that the rule on page 273, lines 30-33, is not intended to apply to those cases in which the pending incidental motion relating to the method of voting is being applied to a vote that has just been taken under one of the regular methods of voting. I think there is every reason to believe that, in such cases, the rule on page 408, lines 24-29, applies with full force and effect until either the motion to retake the vote by another method is rejected or, if it has been adopted, the result of the vote as retaken has been announced by the chair.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with the second sentence of this response, since it seems to me that the rule on page 273, lines 30-33, is not intended to apply to those cases in which the pending incidental motion relating to the method of voting is being applied to a vote that has just been taken under one of the regular methods of voting. I think there is every reason to believe that, in such cases, the rule on page 408, lines 24-29, applies with full force and effect until either the motion to retake the vote by another method is rejected or, if it has been adopted, the result of the vote as retaken has been announced by the chair.

How does p. 62, ll. 7-10, play into this? Isn't "...the vote..." on line 10 the first vote that is taken on the motion?

[Dan Honemann]

How does p. 62, ll. 7-10, play into this? Isn't "...the vote..." on line 10 the first vote that is taken on the motion?

Yes, I think so.

[J. J.]

I agree, but Johnny asks an interesting question.

As far as RONR is concerned, I think the answer is no, a motion to Postpone is not in order after a vote on a main motion has been taken by one of the regular methods and then a motion is timely made (and is still pending or has been adopted or rejected, it doesn't matter) to have the vote taken again by a roll-call vote (or ballot vote, or whatever).

I agree that the motion to Postpone is out of order. I am wondering, however about a Motion Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls. Page 273, l. 26-28, indicates that it would be in order even after the result is announced.

If, at 3:00 PM the motion is adopted in regard to the motion just adopted "that a signed ballot be taken beginning at 5:00 PM," I'd be hard pressed to call that the use of the motion to Postpone, even though it would have the effect of postponing the balloting until 5:00 PM. In theory (and perhaps preferably) the motion could be made prior to the putting of the question.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree that the motion to Postpone is out of order. I am wondering, however about a Motion Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls. Page 273, l. 26-28, indicates that it would be in order even after the result is announced.

If, at 3:00 PM the motion is adopted in regard to the motion just adopted "that a signed ballot be taken beginning at 5:00 PM," I'd be hard pressed to call that the use of the motion to Postpone, even though it would have the effect of postponing the balloting until 5:00 PM. In theory (and perhaps preferably) the motion could be made prior to the putting of the question.

I don't find anything in RONR to make me think that this motion is a proper form of a Motion Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls.

[J. J.]

I don't find anything in RONR to make me think that this motion is a proper form of a Motion Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls.

Since it is established that such a motion may both close and reopen the polls (pp. 274-5), it is clear that that the motion could be used to fix the time for the initial casting of votes to begin.

Further, the are examples in both elections and disciplinary action, where voting might not take place until some motions have been considered.

While I do agree that the time to cast votes cannot be subject to the subsidiary motion to Postpone the assembly seems to be able to have balloting at some other point under RONR. A motion relating to the polls would seem to be the appropriate way to do it.

[J. J.]

As a reference for "delayed voting" see p. 639, l. 29-32, for disciplinary actions and p. 425 for elections.

[Dan Honemann]

I agree that the motion to Postpone is out of order. I am wondering, however about a Motion Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls. Page 273, l. 26-28, indicates that it would be in order even after the result is announced.

If, at 3:00 PM the motion is adopted in regard to the motion just adopted "that a signed ballot be taken beginning at 5:00 PM," I'd be hard pressed to call that the use of the motion to Postpone, even though it would have the effect of postponing the balloting until 5:00 PM. In theory (and perhaps preferably) the motion could be made prior to the putting of the question.

I think that the "beginning at 5:00 PM" aspect of this motion will surely require a suspension of the rules, particularly where, as in this instance, the assembly is already engaged in the process of voting on the motion.

[J. J.]

I think that the "beginning at 5:00 PM" aspect of this motion will surely require a suspension of the rules, particularly where, as in this instance, the assembly is already engaged in the process of voting on the motion.

I would disagree with either rules needing to be suspended to permit a "delayed" vote or the 2/3 simply to delay. That said, if the motion were made prior to the ending of debate (and making of subsidiary motions), I think it would it require a 2/3 vote.

Likewise, though this would not necessarily be the case, the type of voting used might interrupt pending business (at 5:00 PM), so that might require a 2/3 vote. It this were a straight forward roll call vote, where the member's names would be called, it would require a 2/3 beyond question. A signed ballot (or secret ballot) may not require that interruption.

I think the majority can determine when the casting of votes will take place, along with the method of voting, by a Motion Related to Voting or To the Polls, provided that, this majority does not:

a. Is not used to set a limit to for debate or prevent subsidiary motions from being made in regard to the motion being voted on.

b. Does not interrupt some future pending business.

[Dan Honemann]

I would disagree with either rules needing to be suspended to permit a "delayed" vote or the 2/3 simply to delay. That said, if the motion were made prior to the ending of debate (and making of subsidiary motions), I think it would it require a 2/3 vote.

Likewise, though this would not necessarily be the case, the type of voting used might interrupt pending business (at 5:00 PM), so that might require a 2/3 vote. It this were a straight forward roll call vote, where the member's names would be called, it would require a 2/3 beyond question. A signed ballot (or secret ballot) may not require that interruption.

I think the majority can determine when the casting of votes will take place, along with the method of voting, by a Motion Related to Voting or To the Polls, provided that, this majority does not:

a. Is not used to set a limit to for debate or prevent subsidiary motions from being made in regard to the motion being voted on.

b. Does not interrupt some future pending business.

I disagree.

[J. J.]

You disagree that it would take 2/3 to end debate and require a vote?

A bit more seriously, I can see a problem if the majority says that "We will vote on the motion at a future time," and at that future time, the motion is still pending and open to debate and amendment.