Previous Question Ordered on Series Including Both Limit or Extend Debate and the Main Motion

[Weldon Merritt]

I have a question about the Previous Question that doesn’t seem to be directly answered by RONR.

Assume a Main Motion and a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, are pending. Then an order for the Previous Question on all pending motions is adopted. Although RONR does not say so, it seems to me that it would make no sense to vote on Limit or Extend, and that vote should be omitted. Why? Because even if Limit or Extend is adopted, once the MM is either adopted or defeated, either way, there will be noting left for Limit or Extend to apply to.

The same logic would apply if one or more other subsidiary motions are included in the series between Limit or Extend and the MM. Assume that Postpone Definitely, Commit, and Postpone Indefinitely are all pending in the series. (Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible; so bear with me).  If Postpone Definitely is defeated, you keep going. If it is adopted, the MM and adhering motions are postponed to the specified time. But when the motions come back at the specified time, Limit or Extend would be exhausted (RONR 14:19), and its adoption would have been pointless. If PD is not adopted, then Commit would be voted on next. If defeated, votes on the series will continue. And if Commit is adopted, the MM would go to the committee, and when the committee reports, Limit or Extend would be exhausted. (RONR 13:21) So again, the vote on Limit or Extend would have been pointless. If Commit is defeated, the assembly next would vote on Postpone Indefinitely. If that motion is defeated, the assembly then votes on the MM. And if PI is adopted, the MM goes away and there is nothing left for Limit or Extend to apply to.

So it seems to me that any time the Previous Question is ordered on a series that includes both Limit or Extend Limit of Debate and the Main Motion, voting on Limit or Extend would be pointless and should be skipped. Do you agree or am I missing something?

[Josh Martin]

On 12/15/2022 at 10:58 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

So it seems to me that any time the Previous Question is ordered on a series that includes both Limit or Extend Limit of Debate and the Main Motion, voting on Limit or Extend would be pointless and should be skipped. Do you agree or am I missing something?

I agree. I think I would go further and suggest that Limit or Extend is pointless and should be dropped in any situation where the Previous Question has been adopted concerning all of the same motions to which the proposed motion to Limit or Extend is applicable. Because the previous question "supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order limiting or extending debate," (RONR (12th ed.), 16:5), the motion to Limit or Extend no longer has any rational proposition for the assembly to decide, unless the motion to Limit or Extend includes one or more motion(s) not included in the order for the Previous Question.

As you suggest, even in the event the main motion is temporarily disposed of in some way, this makes no difference, because "The conditions for exhaustion of the Previous Question are the same as for an order limiting or extending limits of debate." RONR (12th ed.) 16:10

Edited December 15, 2022 at 06:12 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/15/2022 at 11:58 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Assume a Main Motion and a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, are pending. Then an order for the Previous Question on all pending motions is adopted. Although RONR does not say so, it seems to me that it would make no sense to vote on Limit or Extend, and that vote should be omitted. Why? Because even if Limit or Extend is adopted, once the MM is either adopted or defeated, either way, there will be noting left for Limit or Extend to apply to.

I disagree. 

Here is what RONR says now in 16:9:

"When the Previous Question is ordered on a series of pending motions as explained above under Standard Characteristic 2, they are voted on in order of rank beginning with the immediately pending question—that is, in reverse of the order in which they were made." 

There is nothing at all in RONR which would suggest that this is not the case in every situation, no matter what.  If Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is adopted by the requisite two-thirds vote it certainly must supersede the previously adopted order for the previous question to the extent that they conflict. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/15/2022 at 11:19 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I disagree. 

Here is what RONR says now in 16:9:

"When the Previous Question is ordered on a series of pending motions as explained above under Standard Characteristic 2, they are voted on in order of rank beginning with the immediately pending question—that is, in reverse of the order in which they were made." 

There is nothing at all in RONR which would suggest that this is not the case in every situation, no matter what.  If Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is adopted by the requisite two-thirds vote it certainly must supersede the previously adopted order for the previous question to the extent that they conflict. 

Yes, I realize that's what RONR says. And I agree that a literal reading would mean that you have to vote on Limit or Extend Limits of Debate. What I don't get is how and order limiting or extending debate that includes a limitation or extension on the Main Motion could ever still be relevant after the Previous Question has been ordered on a series that includes both Limit or Extend and the Main Motion. 

RONR 16:3(1) specifies that PQ "supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order limiting or extending debate with respect to the emotions to which it applies." To me, that seems to strengthen the argument  that it would be pointless to vote on Limit or Extend if PQW is ordered on s series that incudes both Limit or Extend and the MM.And if it would be pointless, why do it?

If I'm still missing something, maybe an example of when it would not be pointless would help.

[George Mervosh]

Mr. Merritt, since the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate was never adopted in your scenario, there is no unexhausted order, is there?  

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/15/2022 at 1:49 PM, George Mervosh said:

Mr. Merritt, since the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate was never adopted in your scenario, there is no unexhausted order, is there?  

Well, yes,. that's true. I guess I overlooked that point. But even if it voted on and adopted after PQ has been ordered, I don't see how it can ever be effective. PQ halts debate on and amendment of all motions to which it applies. So I still don't see how voting on Limit or Extend in the my scenario could possible make any difference, because either way, the rest of the series would still have to be voted on without further debate.

I am willing to admit that there could be some scenario that I have overlooked, so that's why I asked for an example of such a scenario.

[Dan Honemann]

A main motion, a motion to amend that motion, and a motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions are pending when a motion to order the previous question on all pending questions is adopted.  The chair must then put the question on the motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions to a vote (16:9). If this motion is adopted, it supersedes the order for the previous question.  The reason for this is essentially the same as the reason why the adoption of one motion limiting or extending debate in a certain way does not prevent another such conflicting motion from being in order.  "The reason is that the two-thirds vote necessary for the adoption of any motion to modify the limits of debate also fulfills the requirement for suspending the rules (25)."  (15:17) 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/15/2022 at 4:54 PM, Dan Honemann said:

A main motion, a motion to amend that motion, and a motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions are pending when a motion to order the previous question on all pending questions is adopted.  The chair must then put the question on the motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions to a vote (16:9). If this motion is adopted, it supersedes the order for the previous question.  The reason for this is essentially the same as the reason why the adoption of one motion limiting or extending debate in a certain way does not prevent another such conflicting motion from being in order.  "The reason is that the two-thirds vote necessary for the adoption of any motion to modify the limits of debate also fulfills the requirement for suspending the rules (25)."  (15:17) 

So are you saying that in that scenario, if motion to limit debate is adopted, it supersedes the order for the Previous Question, so that the amendment and the main motion could then be debated (subject to the one speech/five minutes limit) notwithstanding the prior adoption of PQ? I see nothin in either Sec, 15 or Sec. 16 that explicitly says that. And the fact that Limit or Extends Limits of Debate requires a two-thirds vote doesn't seem persuasive to me, because PQ also requires a two -thirds vote.

RONR 16:11-12 includes an extensive discussion of when PQ is exhausted or interrupted, and I don't see adoption of a pending motion to limit or extend debate among those conditions. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/15/2022 at 9:23 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

So are you saying that in that scenario, if motion to limit debate is adopted, it supersedes the order for the Previous Question, so that the amendment and the main motion could then be debated (subject to the one speech/five minutes limit) notwithstanding the prior adoption of PQ? I see nothin in either Sec, 15 or Sec. 16 that explicitly says that. And the fact that Limit or Extends Limits of Debate requires a two-thirds vote doesn't seem persuasive to me, because PQ also requires a two -thirds vote.

RONR 16:11-12 includes an extensive discussion of when PQ is exhausted or interrupted, and I don't see adoption of a pending motion to limit or extend debate among those conditions. 

Well, you are certainly not the only one who feels this way about it. In fact, I suspect you are in some pretty good company.

 

 

[Drake Savory]

Maybe I'm missing something in the scenario but given the OP isn't it entirely possible that the Previous Question to Limit Debate passes and then the motion to Limit Debate passes, then the Previous Question fails for the main motion (probably because there are now limits in place) and so the assembly is left with the main motion still being debated with the limits now in place.  

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:30 AM, Drake Savory said:

Maybe I'm missing something in the scenario but given the OP isn't it entirely possible that the Previous Question to Limit Debate passes and then the motion to Limit Debate passes, then the Previous Question fails for the main motion (probably because there are now limits in place) and so the assembly is left with the main motion still being debated with the limits now in place.  

I think you need to spell out more fully the scenario you have in mind.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 5:13 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, you are certainly not the only one who feels this way about it. In fact, I suspect you are in some pretty good company.

 

 

Maybe something for the 13th edition to clarify?

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 7:30 AM, Drake Savory said:

Maybe I'm missing something in the scenario but given the OP isn't it entirely possible that the Previous Question to Limit Debate passes and then the motion to Limit Debate passes, then the Previous Question fails for the main motion (probably because there are now limits in place) and so the assembly is left with the main motion still being debated with the limits now in place.  

 

On 12/16/2022 at 7:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I think you need to spell out more fully the scenario you have in mind.

I agree. It seem like Mr. Savory is under the impression that PQ would be voted on separately for each motion in the series, but that's not correct. If PQ is moved on an entire series, only one vote is taken on PQ. If adopted, it halts debate and amendments on the entire series. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 10:17 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Maybe something for the 13th edition to clarify?

Without a doubt, but in the meantime I think it should be understood that RONR means exactly what it says in 16:5(2) and in 16:9 when it says that, when the Previous Question is ordered on a series of pending motions, they are voted on in order of rank beginning with the immediately pending question.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/15/2022 at 9:23 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

RONR 16:11-12 includes an extensive discussion of when PQ is exhausted or interrupted, and I don't see adoption of a pending motion to limit or extend debate among those conditions. 

But there is a substantial difference between exhaustion of an order for the previous question and its being superseded by a subsequently adopted order limiting or extending the limits of debate to the extent that there is a conflict. This distinction is reflected rather well in 15:17-18 with respect to LELD.

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:54 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But there is a substantial difference between exhaustion of an order for the previous question and its being superseded by a subsequently adopted order limiting or extending the limits of debate to the extent that there is a conflict. This distinction is reflected rather well in 15:17-18 with respect to LELD.

 

Where I'm having trouble is in how and adopted LED motion can ever supersede and adopted PQ order, if both apply to the same series ending with the MM. Are you saying that in that event, if LEM is adopted, the motions to which it applies then become debatable under the LEM provision, notwithstanding that PQ has been ordered on the entire series?

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:07 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Where I'm having trouble is in how and adopted LED motion can ever supersede and adopted PQ order, if both apply to the same series ending with the MM. Are you saying that in that event, if LEM is adopted, the motions to which it applies then become debatable under the LEM provision, notwithstanding that PQ has been ordered on the entire series?

 

Yes, I'm saying exactly that, such being the power of a two-thirds vote. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:24 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, I'm saying exactly that, such being the power of a two-thirds vote. 

So PQ is then ignored for the rest of the series? Even though PQ is higher ranking that LEM and also requires a two-thirds vote? If so. I think that needs to be made much more explicit in the 13th edition.

And if PQ isn't ignored, then I am back to asking how adopting LEM could possibly make any difference after debate has been closed on the series  to which LEM would otherwise apply/.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:37 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

So PQ is then ignored for the rest of the series? Even though PQ is higher ranking that LEM and also requires a two-thirds vote? If so. I think that needs to be made much more explicit in the 13th edition.

PQ is superseded with respect to those motions in the series to which it applies by a subsequent adoption of LELD applicable to those motions. The fact that PQ ranks higher than LELD in the order of precedence of motions is entirely irrelevant.  

On 12/16/2022 at 11:37 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

And if PQ isn't ignored, then I am back to asking how adopting LEM could possibly make any difference after debate has been closed on the series  to which LEM would otherwise apply/.

It isn't ignored, it is superseded.  If LELD fails to attain a two-thirds vote, PQ will remain in full force and effect.  It will also remain in effect with respect to any motions in the series to which it applies which are not included in the subsequently adopted LELD. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

It isn't ignored, it is superseded.  If LELD fails to attain a two-thirds vote, PQ will remain in full force and effect.  It will also remain in effect with respect to any motions in the series to which it applies which are not included in the subsequently adopted LELD. 

I agree with that, if there are any such motions. But in the scenario I posited, both LED and PQ applied to the entire series down to and including the MM. So in that scenario, how would there be any motions which are included in the PQ order but not the LED order? Certainly, if LED is moved on the entire series and then PQ is ordered on part of the series, but not including the MM, then LED (if adopted) would still apply to the MM. But that was mot the scenario I posited.

[Rob Elsman]

Perhaps it would be helpful to say that the other effects of the order for the Previous Question are still in effect.  So, if a primary amendment were pending at the time the order were adopted, no secondary amendments would be allowed, nor would other subsidiary motions other than Lay on the Table be in order until the order for the Previous Question were exhausted.

The matter becomes even clearer if the motion to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate were applied only to the pending amendment.  In this case, once the order to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate were exhausted, the main motion would be immediately pending, undebatable, and unamendable, on account of the unexhausted order for the Previous Question.

[Rob Elsman]

I doubt that, in reality, the adoption of the subsidiary motion, Previous Question, would be immediately followed by the adoption of the pending subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate if the scope of the two motions were the same.  Technically, I suppose it is possible, but I cannot see from where the two-thirds vote to adopt Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate would come from, the assembly having just decided to shut off all debate on the same pending questions.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 1:44 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I agree with that, if there are any such motions. But in the scenario I posited, both LED and PQ applied to the entire series down to and including the MM. So in that scenario, how would there be any motions which are included in the PQ order but not the LED order? Certainly, if LED is moved on the entire series and then PQ is ordered on part of the series, but not including the MM, then LED (if adopted) would still apply to the MM. But that was mot the scenario I posited.

I didn't say it was the scenario that you posited.  I think I have already indicated that, when a subsequently adopted LELD applies to all motions included in a previously adopted PQ, then that PQ is completely superseded.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 1:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I doubt that, in reality, the adoption of the subsidiary motion, Previous Question, would be immediately followed by the adoption of the pending subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate if the scope of the two motions were the same.  Technically, I suppose it is possible, but I cannot see from where the two-thirds vote to adopt Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate would come from, the assembly having just decided to shut off all debate on the same pending questions.

I suppose it is unlikely, but it can happen.

If you try hard enough, I bet you can come up with a situation in which it may occur.  🙂

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 12:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I didn't say it was the scenario that you posited.  I think I have already indicated that, when a subsequently adopted LELD applies to all motions included in a previously adopted PQ, then that PQ is completely superseded.

I that indeed is the case, I think it needs to be more explicit in RONR. To me, it seems that when RONR says that PQ stops all debate on all motions to which it applies, it means exactly that. I just don't see anything that, on its face, indicates to me that if LED is then adopted, debate can then continue on the same motions on which PQ was just ordered. I don't have an issue with that being the case, except that it just isn't  clear to me that it is the case.