(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.