Previous Question and Subsequent Motion to Vote by a Specified Method

[Weldon Merritt]

As we know, adoption of the Previous Question closes debate on and amendment of the motions to which it applies and prevents the making of additional subsidiary motions except Lay on the Table. (RONR 26:2.) (For this thread, I am ignoring the unlikely possibility of a vote to adopt Limit of Extend Debate, if it is included in the series to which PQ apples. Those interested in that issue may find this thread interesting.) However, PQ does not preclude the making of subsequent privileged or incidental motions (id.), but PQ applies to any such subsequent motions. (RONR 16:19.) So on its face, that provision would preclude amending any subsequent incidental motion that would otherwise be amendable.

Now suppose that PQ has been ordered on the Main Motion (with or without other higher-ranking motions included in the order). Then before the vote is taken on the MM, someone moves to take the vote by a specified method (say, a counted vote), but another member wants the vote to be taken by another method (say, by ballot). Ordinarily, the motion to take the vote by a specified method would be amendable (RONR 30:3(6)), so the member who wanted to take the vote by ballot could move to substitute that method. But PQ says that subsequent incidental motions are subject to the order, so the motion to take the vote by a counted vote seemingly would not be amendable.  So, is a member who wants to take the vote by a different method simply out of luck? Or would amendment of the motion be in order notwithstanding the PQ order?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I would think they could not amend but they could offer a motion for their alternative method if the first motion to take by a certain method fails.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/21/2022 at 9:29 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I would think they could not amend but they could offer a motion for their alternative method if the first motion to take by a certain method fails.

I'm not so sure that would be in order. But even if so, that certainly wouldn't help if the initial motion is adopted. It seems to me that the member who wants a different metiod should not have to wait and risk having the first motion adopted.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

If the first one was in order, why would not the second one?  And yes I agree, it would be a game of getting your motion first, and the member who wants a different method is in a position of disadvantage.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/21/2022 at 9:58 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

So, is a member who wants to take the vote by a different method simply out of luck? Or would amendment of the motion be in order notwithstanding the PQ order?

I don't think an amendment would be in order. The rule in question provides "While one or more motions on which the Previous Question has been ordered remain pending, the order also applies to any other motions that may take precedence over these pending questions. (The rules stated in the two preceding paragraphs—relating to reconsiderations and appeals—are applications of this principle.)" RONR (12th ed.) 16:19, emphasis added

The standard descriptive characteristics for Motions Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls (and a related footnote) indicate that they can be moved while an order for the Previous Question is in effect, but they also provide that the Previous Question can be used to prevent their amendment. See RONR (12th ed.) 30:3, 30:3n13. Therefore, if the order for the Previous Question applies to this motion (as 16:19 indicates), then the motion to order a counted vote may not be amended.

I concur with Ms. Harlos, however, that if the motion for a counted vote is defeated, a member could then move that the vote be taken by ballot. If the assembly has voted not to take a counted vote, this does not necessarily prevent making a motion for a different method of voting.

As to the concern that members may not be aware of this option, I believe it would be in order for a member to obtain the floor to briefly indicate that, if the motion for a counted vote is defeated, he will move that the vote be taken by ballot.

"However, as explained in 4, the making of a motion of any kind—whether debatable or undebatable—may be prefaced, when necessary, by a few words of explanation, which must not become a speech; or a member can first request information, or briefly indicate the substance of a desired proposal and ask for the chair's assistance in wording an appropriate motion. Similarly, business may sometimes be expedited by allowing a few words of factual explanation while an undebatable motion is pending." RONR (12th ed.) 43:31

This is quite similar to the appropriate procedure to use when a member wishes to suggest a different amendment when a secondary amendment is pending. While there is the added complication that the previous question has been ordered, the last sentence of 43:31 appears to resolve that.

"An amendment of the third degree is not permitted. To accomplish the same purpose, a member can say, while a secondary amendment is pending, that if it is voted down, he will offer another secondary amendment—which he can then indicate briefly—in its place." RONR (12th ed.) 12:12

A potential alternative may be to suspend the rules (quite possibly by unanimous consent) to permit multiple suggestions for voting methods to be voted on as filling blanks, in the usual manner, notwithstanding that the order for the previous question is in effect.

"In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time" RONR (12th ed.) 30:4

On 12/21/2022 at 11:07 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

If the first one was in order, why would not the second one?  And yes I agree, it would be a game of getting your motion first, and the member who wants a different method is in a position of disadvantage.

Mr. Merritt is, I assume, referring to this rule.

"No motion can be renewed during the same session in which it has already been before the assembly, except where its renewal is permitted by a specific rule; and such a rule always implies circumstances under which the motion has in some respect become a different question." RONR (12th ed.) 38:3

I would suggest, however, that moving that a question be voted on by ballot is, in fact, a "different question" than moving for a counted vote.

Edited December 21, 2022 at 05:13 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 12/21/2022 at 10:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

I would suggest, however, that moving that a question be voted on by ballot is, in fact, a "different question" than moving for a counted vote.

Yes that is my thought as well.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/21/2022 at 10:07 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

If the first one was in order, why would not the second one? 

I said I wasn't sure it would be; not that it definitely would not be. I couldn't quite put my finger on why it might not be, but Mr. Martin hit it:

On 12/21/2022 at 10:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Merritt is, I assume, referring to this rule.

"No motion can be renewed during the same session in which it has already been before the assembly, except where its renewal is permitted by a specific rule; and such a rule always implies circumstances under which the motion has in some respect become a different question." RONR (12th ed.) 38:3

However, I now agree with his reasoning here:

On 12/21/2022 at 10:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

I would suggest, however, that moving that a question be voted on by ballot is, in fact, a "different question" than moving for a counted vote.

And I like his suggestions for how to handle the situation.

[George Mervosh]

On 12/21/2022 at 10:58 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

But PQ says that subsequent incidental motions are subject to the order, so the motion to take the vote by a counted vote seemingly would not be amendable.  So, is a member who wants to take the vote by a different method simply out of luck? Or would amendment of the motion be in order notwithstanding the PQ order?

30:4 states "Methods of Voting. In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time."

 

So if they are usually treated not as amendments, are they amendments?

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/21/2022 at 10:38 AM, George Mervosh said:

So if they are usually treated not as amendments, are they amendments?

Good question. RONR 30:3(6) says that motion relating to voting and the polls are amendable. But 30:4 suggests that the issue of what method to use should not be treated as amendments. And truthfully, I think treating them as filling blanks makes the most sense. 

[George Mervosh]

On 12/21/2022 at 12:54 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Good question. RONR 30:3(6) says that motion relating to voting and the polls are amendable. But 30:4 suggests that the issue of what method to use should not be treated as amendments. And truthfully, I think treating them as filling blanks makes the most sense. 

I agree, especially because, 12:92 states that filling a blank is not a form of amendment in itself.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/21/2022 at 1:20 PM, George Mervosh said:

I agree, especially because, 12:92 states that filling a blank is not a form of amendment in itself.

Well, the full sentence provides: "Filling blanks, although not a form of amendment in itself, is a closely related device by which an unlimited number of alternative choices for a particular specification in a main motion or primary amendment can be pending at the same time." RONR (12th ed.) 12:92

It would seem to me that  when the Previous Question prevents the use of amendments, it also prevents the use of filling blanks.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Hmm not sure I agree there.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/21/2022 at 2:50 PM, Josh Martin said:

It would seem to me that  when the Previous Question prevents the use of amendments, it also prevents the use of filling blanks.

 

On 12/21/2022 at 2:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Hmm not sure I agree there.

Then how do you explain 12:105?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

12:105 actually supports the point (as I see it) that suggestions can be offered, and voting would proceed in the way that it normally does with blanks.  

[Weldon Merritt]

Mr. Honemann, I found your comments in my previous thread very helpful, and I am hoping you will add your insight here, too.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/21/2022 at 3:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Then how do you explain 12:105?

Both 12:101 and 12:105 certainly provide clarity on this matter.

"Motions to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate or for the Previous Question can be applied to the consideration of suggestions, and when voting on the suggestions has been ordered by adoption of either of these motions, no further suggestions for filling the blank may be made at the time the order goes into effect. However, if a member obtains the floor and moves the Previous Question before a reasonable opportunity to make suggestions has been given, the chair must call for suggestions before stating the motion for the Previous Question." RONR (12th ed.) 12:101

"Normally, blanks in a pending motion should be filled before the motion itself is voted on. However, if the pending motion is included in an adopted order for the Previous Question, that order must be carried out even if the blank has not yet been filled—and even if no suggestions have been offered (note, however, that a reasonable opportunity to make suggestions must always be given; see 12:101). This may happen, for example, when two thirds of those voting are confident that the motion will be rejected in any case. But if the motion is actually adopted with an unfilled blank, the assembly immediately proceeds to fill it, and no new subject (except a privileged one) may be introduced before the motion is thereby completed." RONR (12th ed.) 12:105

Since an adopted order for the previous questions even prevents further suggestions for an existing blank, it would certainly seem to be the case that the assembly could not initiate the process of filling blanks for a different motion.

Edited December 22, 2022 at 11:58 AM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Okay adding in 12:101 with 12:105 gives context.  I was puzzled by 12:105 alone.

This situation appears to very factually different though - perhaps the outcome would be the same.  12:101 seems to be assuming a motion that contains a blank has already been moved and someone moves Previous Question before opportunity to fill blanks has been given, and 12:101 says reasonably opportunity has been given.  It all has to do with a motion pending when PQ is adopted.

How does this apply if PQ is ordered and THEN a motion containing a blank is moved or alternatively, the motion for voting methods originally started with is moved, can someone then create a blank and does the Chair have to give reasonable opportunity for filling since it is NOT an amendment?

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/22/2022 at 7:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Okay adding in 12:101 with 12:105 gives context.  I was puzzled by 12:105 alone.

This situation appears to very factually different though - perhaps the outcome would be the same.  12:101 seems to be assuming a motion that contains a blank has already been moved and someone moves Previous Question before opportunity to fill blanks has been given, and 12:101 says reasonably opportunity has been given.  It all has to do with a motion pending when PQ is adopted.

How does this apply if PQ is ordered and THEN a motion containing a blank is moved or alternatively, the motion for voting methods originally started with is moved, can someone then create a blank and does the Chair have to give reasonable opportunity for filling since it is NOT an amendment?

In view of the fact that ordering the previous question on a motion containing a blank has the effect described in 12:105, it should be obvious that the device of filling blanks cannot be applied to a pending motion which is already subject to a previously adopted order for the previous question.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/22/2022 at 6:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

How does this apply if PQ is ordered and THEN a motion containing a blank is moved or alternatively, the motion for voting methods originally started with is moved, can someone then create a blank and does the Chair have to give reasonable opportunity for filling since it is NOT an amendment?

I do not think a blank could be created when an order for the previous question is in effect. RONR specifically states that "It is not in order to create a blank in a motion on which the Previous Question has been ordered." RONR (12th ed.) 12:95

While the text does not specifically say so, I think this means that a blank also cannot be created in a motion made while an order for the Previous Question is in effect, which is the situation in this thread.

I think the text is less clear on how the rule applies to making a motion containing a blank. I am inclined to think that in such circumstances, a motion containing a blank would be dilatory (since the blank could not be filled), but I am not entirely certain.

Edited December 22, 2022 at 01:43 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

12:95 is much clearer but still less than crystal as it all appears to be talking about a situation in which there is an existing motion when PQ is ordered.  But this scenario is when a motion is made after PQ is ordered but it makes sense it would apply to a new one but again, it is not crystal clear.

 

In a new motion with a blank, I agree it is less clear, but the examples given are for an existing motion, not a new one.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/21/2022 at 12:38 PM, George Mervosh said:

On 12/21/2022 at 10:58 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

But PQ says that subsequent incidental motions are subject to the order, so the motion to take the vote by a counted vote seemingly would not be amendable.  So, is a member who wants to take the vote by a different method simply out of luck? Or would amendment of the motion be in order notwithstanding the PQ order?

30:4 states "Methods of Voting. In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time."

 

So if they are usually treated not as amendments, are they amendments?

On 12/22/2022 at 8:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

In view of the fact that ordering the previous question on a motion containing a blank has the effect described in 12:105, it should be obvious that the device of filling blanks cannot be applied to a pending motion which is already subject to a previously adopted order for the previous question.

My understanding of 30:4 is that when different methods of voting are suggested and the chair treats them as filling blanks, this just means the chair takes the vote on the different methods in the prescribed sequence (beginning with the method that takes the most time), and the first one to receive a majority vote is considered as having been ordered by the assembly, while the rest are ignored. There would not then be any need to vote on a pending motion relating to voting "as amended". 

Therefore, I don't see the application of Previous Question having much bearing on the ability to "fill blanks" in this manner, because no blank is being created or filled in a pending motion. And even if it did have some bearing, the concern would largely be theoretical. As @Josh Martin has pointed out, a member could "indicate that, if the motion for a counted vote is defeated, he will move that the vote be taken by ballot."

The only difference, then, between allowing different suggestions to be made and not allowing it would be that if allowed, they are voted on in decreasing order of the amount of time the voting would take; and if not allowed, they are voted on in the order in which they are made.

Edited December 23, 2022 at 03:37 AM by Shmuel Gerber
typo

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And at the risk of speaking heresy, it seems like this is one of those situation where we have to be more concerned about whether the rules are serving the assembly instead of the other way around.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/22/2022 at 3:49 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

My understanding of 30:4 is that when different methods of voting are suggested and the chair treats them filling blanks, this just means the chair takes the vote on the different methods in the prescribed sequence (beginning with the method that takes the most time), and the first one to receive a majority vote is considered as having been ordered by the assembly, while the rest are ignored.

In the question as originally posited by Mr. Merritt, a motion has been made to take the vote in a certain way.  Are you suggesting that when this happens the chair then, on his own accord, can simply ask if anyone has any other ideas as to how the vote should be taken?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/21/2022 at 12:38 PM, George Mervosh said:

So if they are usually treated not as amendments, are they amendments?

Not usually.

[Shmuel Gerber]

  

On 12/22/2022 at 6:16 PM, Dan Honemann said:

On 12/22/2022 at 3:49 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

My understanding of 30:4 is that when different methods of voting are suggested and the chair treats them filling blanks, this just means the chair takes the vote on the different methods in the prescribed sequence (beginning with the method that takes the most time), and the first one to receive a majority vote is considered as having been ordered by the assembly, while the rest are ignored.

In the question as originally posited by Mr. Merritt, a motion has been made to take the vote in a certain way.  Are you suggesting that when this happens the chair then, on his own accord, can simply ask if anyone has any other ideas as to how the vote should be taken?

No, I'm not suggesting that the chair on his own accord asks how the vote should be taken. Rather, I think that if another member indicates a desire to move a different method, the chair can arrange to take votes on both methods in a logical sequence as in filling blanks, instead of ruling that the first motion is not subject to amendment because the Previous Question is in effect. @Weldon Merritt wrote:

"Now suppose that PQ has been ordered on the Main Motion (with or without other higher-ranking motions included in the order). Then before the vote is taken on the MM, someone moves to take the vote by a specified method (say, a counted vote), but another member wants the vote to be taken by another method (say, by ballot). Ordinarily, the motion to take the vote by a specified method would be amendable (RONR 30:3(6)), so the member who wanted to take the vote by ballot could move to substitute that method. "

RONR (12th ed.) says 30:4 says, "when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time." So the scenario could go like this:

Member A: Mr. President!

Chair: For what purpose does the member rise?

Member A: I move that the vote on the pending main motion be taken by a counted rising vote. (Second.)

Chair: It is moved and seconded to vote on the main motion by a counted rising vote.

Member B (interrupting): Mr. President, I would prefer that the vote be taken by ballot.

Member C : I second that.

Chair (not seeming to mind that Member B did not obtain the floor): Two methods of voting on the main motion have been offered. A majority vote in the affirmative is required for the assembly to order that either of these methods be used. The chair will put the questions on using these methods in the following sequence: Since a ballot vote would take longer than a counted rising vote, the chair will first put the question on whether to take the vote by ballot. If the affirmative has it, then the vote on the main will be taken by ballot, and there will not be any vote taken on whether to order a counted rising vote. But if the negative has it on the question of taking the vote by ballot, then the chair will put the question on whether to take a counted rising vote, and in that case you can vote for or against this method regardless of how you voted on ordering a ballot vote. Finally, if neither of these methods attains a majority in the affirmative, the chair will choose to call for a rising vote on the main motion, but will order a count only if he deems it necessary for judging the result. Those in favor of taking the vote on the main motion by ballot, say aye  … Those opposed, say no. … , etc.

------------ [end of script] ------------

Now, if I'm wrong, and Member B's suggestion is not in order because of the Previous Question, then the only practical difference I see is that the chair would have to advise Member B to wait until after the vote is taken on ordering a counted rising vote before moving that the vote be taken by ballot, in effect relying on the order in which members can obtain the floor instead of the presumably more logical order prescribed by RONR.