A well-informed reader called my attention to a 1956 Opinion of the Justices (334 Mass. 745, for you law junkies), which holds pretty clearly that, even if a roll-call vote is taken to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to the next session, a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed in conformity with the legislative rules must be “adversely disposed of” before the vote can stand as “final action.” If they don’t defeat the motion to reconsider, and then the session adjourns, there was no final vote on the amendment.
In other words, if Rushing is able to move for reconsideration, the previous vote is pretty much nullified unless and until his motion is defeated. At least, that’s my current understanding.
And the intrigue continues.
The palace intrigue is fascinating.
<
p>
This is great theater.
But if that’s the case, why didn’t they move to adjourn right after moving to reconsider? Adjournment also requires a simple majority, right? Shouldn’t it be really easy to kill something that only requires 25% to pass when you don’t have anywhere near 50% in favor of it?
Maybe somehow he had to allow the vote to reconsider but he had the power to not allow a vote to adjourn.
http://www.mlri.org/…
<
p>
I am serious. No, procedure has fewer options for palace intrigue, in some ways, and Rep. Rushing is a master of procedure.