Question regarding Divide the Question / Object to consideration

[Steven Britton]

A question is moved, and subsequently divided in two parts. The first part, after debate, is adopted. Can a member then interrupt and  Object To Consideration Of The Question on the 2nd part of the divided question prior to any debate or application of a subsidiary motion to the 2nd part?

[Joshua Katz]

The answer, it seems to me, can't be any different than the answer to this question: A question is moved, and subsequently divided in two parts. The first part is taken up. Can a member immediately interrupt and object to consideration, prior to any debate or application of a subsidiary motion to the first part?

That seems simpler, and I think the answer is clearly yes. So I'll go with yes to the original question, too.

The alternative is that objection to consideration would need to be made before division, and so it could be avoided by simply tying together the incendiary motion with one that everyone thinks needs to be taken up at the session.

In theory, it seems to me it should matter how division took place - if it required a majority vote, I am less certain. But I can't see any textual support for distinguishing on that basis, so I think my answer is the same, yes, to both.

[Steven Britton]

 

22 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The answer, it seems to me, can't be any different than the answer to this question: A question is moved, and subsequently divided in two parts. The first part is taken up. Can a member immediately interrupt and object to consideration, prior to any debate or application of a subsidiary motion to the first part?

That seems simpler, and I think the answer is clearly yes. So I'll go with yes to the original question, too.

The alternative is that objection to consideration would need to be made before division, and so it could be avoided by simply tying together the incendiary motion with one that everyone thinks needs to be taken up at the session.

In theory, it seems to me it should matter how division took place - if it required a majority vote, I am less certain. But I can't see any textual support for distinguishing on that basis, so I think my answer is the same, yes, to both.

Of course, if there was debate on the original question prior to its division, then Object To Consideration Of The Question is obviously not in order on the 2nd part.

Edited August 11, 2018 at 02:54 AM by Steven Britton

[Steven Britton]

40 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The answer, it seems to me, can't be any different than the answer to this question: A question is moved, and subsequently divided in two parts. The first part is taken up. Can a member immediately interrupt and object to consideration, prior to any debate or application of a subsidiary motion to the first part?

That seems simpler, and I think the answer is clearly yes. So I'll go with yes to the original question, too.

The alternative is that objection to consideration would need to be made before division, and so it could be avoided by simply tying together the incendiary motion with one that everyone thinks needs to be taken up at the session.

In theory, it seems to me it should matter how division took place - if it required a majority vote, I am less certain. But I can't see any textual support for distinguishing on that basis, so I think my answer is the same, yes, to both.

This is similar to a question that Paul McClintock recently asked regarding application of the Previous Question once Division Of The Question is adopted, but the Standard Descriptive Characteristics to Object To Consideration Of The Question, RONR, 11th ed., p. 267, state:

"The objection can be raised only before there has been any debate or any subsidiary motion except Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair; thereafter, consideration of the main question has begun and it is too late to object."

As Division Of The Question is an Incidental motion, my concern is with the whether it matters that debate occurred on the first question only after the original question was divided.

Edited August 11, 2018 at 03:13 AM by Steven Britton

[Joshua Katz]

9 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

 As Division Of The Question is an Incidental motion, my concern is with the whether it matters that debate occurred on the first question only after the original question was divided.

I have trouble seeing why it should. There has been no debate on the question presently being objected to. But I return to my intuition (which is clearly wrong, but seems like a good idea to me) that it should matter how the division took place. If it was on the demand of a single member, then the two topics are known to be independent, and it seems clear that objection to consideration is appropriate. If it required a vote, then its likely some of the merits are shared, and maybe it isn't so clear. But there's nothing in the text to support that, and I can't see how debate on a separate motion counts as debate on this motion (after the division).

[Dan Honemann]

My guess is that this thread has languished for a few days without further response because virtually everyone agrees with Mr. Katz that whenever an original main motion has been divided before there has been any debate on it and before any subsidiary motion other than Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair, an objection to the consideration of any one of the parts into which it has been divided can be raised whenever that part becomes the immediately pending question provided that the objection is raised before there has been any debate on that part, and before any subsidiary motion applied to it (other than Lay on the Table) has been stated by the chair.

Looks right to me.

[Steven Britton]

 

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

My guess is that this thread has languished for a few days without further response because virtually everyone agrees with Mr. Katz that whenever an original main motion has been divided before there has been any debate on it and before any subsidiary motion other than Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair, an objection to the consideration of any one of the parts into which it has been divided can be raised whenever that part becomes the immediately pending question provided that the objection is raised before there has been any debate on that part, and before any subsidiary motion applied to it (other than Lay on the Table) has been stated by the chair.

Looks right to me.

Thanks Dan, in the particular scenario, let's say, it isn't a situation where the question could be divided by demand, and I appreciate your answer.

Edited August 14, 2018 at 08:33 PM by Steven Britton

[Joshua Katz]

4 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

Thanks Dan, in the particular scenario, let's say, it isn't a situation where the question could be divided by demand, and I appreciate your answer.

Having thought about it, I have decided it's the same answer regardless of how the division takes place