Amending a Motion

[Guest J. Hauser]

When is it appropriate to amend a motion?  Before or after the main motion is seconded?  Once the amended motion is brought to the floor and seconded, does that subsidiary motion replace the main motion? 

[Joshua Katz]

It is appropriate to move to amend before the motion is seconded. Before the question is before the assembly, the maker may modify it, but the assembly cannot. Once it is before the assembly, it belongs to the assembly and may be amended by that body.

There is no bringing of the amended motion to the floor, precisely, though. A motion is made, and is pending. A subsidiary motion to amend is then made. The motion to amend is then pending, and must be decided (or done away with in some way) before returning to the main motion (so that we know what the main motion says!) but nothing has  been replaced. Think of it more like a stack of papers - what went on the stack last (the amendment) must be removed first. So there will be debate on the amendment, which will then be adopted or not, followed by debate on the main motion, which now has either been amended, or not, depending on the outcome of that vote.

[jstackpo]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

before returning to the main motion (so that we know what the main motion says!) but nothing has  been replaced.

Well, sorta.  If the amendment is to change a word (or number, or whatever) in the main motion, and the amendment is adopted, the new word (number, whatever) is what is now IN the main motion -- the old word (&c) has been replaced by the new one.  But ALL the rest of the original main motion is unchanged.  Then you go on to discuss the further merits of the (now amended) main motion with NO further reference to its original version.

 

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Well, sorta.  If the amendment is to change a word (or number, or whatever) in the main motion, and the amendment is adopted, the new word (number, whatever) is what is now IN the main motion -- the old word (&c) has been replaced by the new one.  But ALL the rest of the original main motion is unchanged.  Then you go on to discuss the further merits of the (now amended) main motion with NO further reference to its original version.

 

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, but I fully agree with your description.

[jstackpo]

What I guess I was objecting to was your words "nothing has been replaced".     An amendment does commonly replace something (or strike something out) and can, indeed, "replace" the entire main motion, as a "substitute".

It is convenient to think of "amendments" as manipulating the words, or chunks of text, of a motion, exclusively  The "meaning" of what you are doing in making amendments sort of just goes along for the ride.

[Joshua Katz]

10 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

What I guess I was objecting to was your words "nothing has been replaced".     An amendment does commonly replace something (or strike something out) and can, indeed, "replace" the entire main motion, as a "substitute".

 

Okay, got it. I meant to prevent the misinterpretation that by moving to amend, the underlying motion goes away immediately (which would have the same effect as the motion to amend being automatically adopted), the way some organizations seem to think that shouting "question" is enough to move to a vote on the main motion. In short, I was trying to emphasize that after the amendment is dealt with, there remains a main motion (either amended or not) which must be dealt with; it's not onto the next item of business.

[jstackpo]

Ah, we are on the same page (of seven hundred and sixty eight!).  I shudder at the thought of how many the 2020 edition will contain.