+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [PASSED] Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act (Cooling-off Period) (/thread-7815.html)
Pages:
1
2
[PASSED] Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act (Cooling-off Period) - Amerion - 01-27-2020
I am curious if there is support for an amendment to the Legislative Procedure Act which mandates that any new bill which is substantially similar to a previous bill which failed at vote be restricted from going to a vote for two to three weeks from the date of that vote's closure?
Current draft:
Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act Wrote:Legislative Procedure Act
1. Legislative Rules
...
(7) Should any bill, resolution or amendment fail to become law, any proposal which is judged by the Chair as being substantially similar to that failed legislation shall be prevented from going to vote for two weeks after the closure of the vote. The Chair may waive this restriction should a legislator motion for them to do so, provided that there has been no objection within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Original DraftRE: [DISCUSSION] Cooling-off Period on Failed Legislation - Seraph - 01-27-2020
I think that's probably fair.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Cooling-off Period on Failed Legislation - Roavin - 01-27-2020
I appreciate the intent but I have a few comments and worries:
- Somebody needs to decide when it's "substantially similar". This would probably be the Chair, in line with how it is defined for competing legislation.
- Wouldn't the Chair already be able to do that using their existing discretionary powers? The current LPA was deliberately written in a way that gives the Chair many freedoms to effectively guide debate.
- If an amendment is voted down because of a particular piece of pork contained within it, and an alternative is proposed that's the same bill just without that piece of pork, wouldn't it be reasonable then to just send it to the vote "right away"? In a way this is what we have right now with Jay's amendments.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Cooling-off Period on Failed Legislation - Amerion - 01-27-2020
(01-27-2020, 04:52 AM)Roavin Wrote: I appreciate the intent but I have a few comments and worries:
- Somebody needs to decide when it's "substantially similar". This would probably be the Chair, in line with how it is defined for competing legislation.
Yes. I think so too.
(01-27-2020, 04:52 AM)Roavin Wrote:
- Wouldn't the Chair already be able to do that using their existing discretionary powers? The current LPA was deliberately written in a way that gives the Chair many freedoms to effectively guide debate.
I assume you are referring to Article 2(5)?:
While I would agree that the Chair does have some discretion in this matter, it would be preferable to state unequivocally that — and this is by no means a reference to any current discussions but rather a hypothetical situation — Legislators will be unable to continually 'ram' through the same bill previously rejected in the hopes that one attempt will be successful.
(01-27-2020, 04:52 AM)Roavin Wrote:
- If an amendment is voted down because of a particular piece of pork contained within it, and an alternative is proposed that's the same bill just without that piece of pork, wouldn't it be reasonable then to just send it to the vote "right away"? In a way this is what we have right now with Jay's amendments.
Yes, and I imagine this would be at the discretion of the Chair as to what constitutes substantially different. I.e. A bill which retains some 90%+ of one that just failed should be disqualified from going to a vote.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Cooling-off Period on Failed Legislation - Rebeltopia - 01-27-2020
Id support such an amendment. While it doesnt happen often, it has in the past, which usually leads to a vote almost immediately after the "new" debate time is up.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Cooling-off Period on Failed Legislation - Amerion - 01-28-2020
Is this satisfactory?
Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act Wrote:Legislative Procedure Act
1. Legislative Rules
...
(7) Should any bill, resolution or amendment fail to become law, any proposal which is judged by the Chair as being substantially similar to that failed legislation shall be prevented from going to vote for three weeks after the closure of the vote.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act (Cooling-off Period) - Tsunamy - 01-28-2020
Generally, I'm in favor if this and (in the distant past) raised a fuss when we've tried to hold votes/revotes/etc.
That said, I'm concerned that three weeks is a rather long time. And, depending on the severity of the legislation, might be an impractical to detrimental.
Ask we put in an overriding clause or some sort? I mean, since this is all up to the judgement of the Chair anyway, something like "this may be overridden during extenuating circumstances" shouldn't be that much of a difference.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act (Cooling-off Period) - Amerion - 01-29-2020
(01-28-2020, 12:28 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Generally, I'm in favor if this and (in the distant past) raised a fuss when we've tried to hold votes/revotes/etc.
That said, I'm concerned that three weeks is a rather long time. And, depending on the severity of the legislation, might be an impractical to detrimental.
Ask we put in an overriding clause or some sort? I mean, since this is all up to the judgement of the Chair anyway, something like "this may be overridden during extenuating circumstances" shouldn't be that much of a difference.
I’ve admittedly erred on a longer time frame. Is two weeks more suitable?
In any case, as you’ve noted, the Chair should be able to override the clause should the occasion necessitate such an intervention. I have amended the text of the bill to reflect these changes. The language used to describe the process of waiving the restriction has been replicated from the Motion to Waive the mandatory debate period. However, I am also open to changing this if it is deemed not appropriate for this particular instance.
Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act Wrote:Legislative Procedure Act
1. Legislative Rules
...
(7) Should any bill, resolution or amendment fail to become law, any proposal which is judged by the Chair as being substantially similar to that failed legislation shall be prevented from going to vote for two weeks after the closure of the vote. The Chair may waive this restriction should a legislator motion for them to do so, provided that there has been no objection within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act (Cooling-off Period) - Seraph - 01-29-2020
I think that's satisfactory.
RE: [DRAFT] Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act (Cooling-off Period) - Amerion - 01-29-2020
(01-29-2020, 04:27 AM)Seraph Wrote: I think that's satisfactory.
All good then. I'll amend the OP to include the latest changes.