(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.