SR 109-06: Protecting the Constitution and Senators' Rights Resolution (Adopted)

[Joseph Cao]

Senate Resolution

To amend the Senate Rules so as to preserve the rights of Senators under the constitution.

Be it resolved in the Senate Assembled, that the rules be amended as follows:

Protecting the Constitution and Senators' Rights Resolution

Section 1: Article 1, Clause 7 shall read as follows:

7. No Presiding Officer operating under the rules of this chamber shall
       1. Deny or inhibit the powers of the Senate as expressed in the Constitution.
       2. Subordinate the Senate to another branch or subvert the co-equal status of the Legislative Branch.
       3. Prematurely end an objection or vote change period.
       4. Close a vote before a quorum has had a reasonable opportunity to vote.

Section 2: Article 2, Clause 3 sub clause a) shall be altered as follows:

a.) The first 15 open threads shall be open to all legislation initially regarding bills, resolutions or constitutional amendments. Legislation shall be brought up into these 15 slots by the PPT in the order of their introduction, unless the sponsor already has two or more pieces of legislation on the Senate floor. Legislation from Senators who do not already have two bills on the floor shall take priority until all such other legislation is completed. The PPT shall be the Presiding Officer for these open threads.

Section 3: Article 3, Clause 3 shall be amended as follows:

3.) If judged hostile by the sponsor, or if a Senator has objected, a vote shall be started by the PPT once the amendment has been on the floor twenty four hours. The vote shall last for three days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment, at which point Senators who have voted shall be prohibited from changing their votes and the vote shall be declared final. No amendment vote shall be declared passed unless a quorum has voted on the amendment.

Section 4: Article 4, Clause 4 shall be amended as follows:

4.) When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 120 hours, any Senator may call for a vote on said legislation. The presiding officer shall open a vote if no other member of the Senate objects within 24 hours of the call for a vote. When the legislation has been on the floor for more than 120 hours, any Senator may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of three-fifths of the Senate (with a quorum present in the vote), the Senate shall end debate, and proceed to a final vote. If the legislation has been on the floor for more than 168 hours, or debate has ceased for 24 hours, a simple majority (with a quorum present in the vote) is needed in order to end the debates. The presiding officer shall then open a final vote.

Section 5: Article 5 Clause 3 shall be amended as follows:        

3.) For the motion to table to pass, two-thirds of those voting (excluding abstentions and with a quorum present in the vote) must support the motion.

Section 6: Article 6, Clause 1 shall be amended as follows:

1.) Final Votes and veto overrides votes shall last for a maximum of 4 days (i.e. 96 hours). No final vote may be ended without a quorum present in the vote. A final vote may be ended earlier than 96 hours:

a. If the vote has a majority to pass or fail, then the Presiding officer may call 24 hours for Senators to vote or change their votes.

b. If all Senators have voted and the result is unanimous for or against, then the Presiding Officer may end the vote immediately.

Section 7:
Article 7, Clause 3 shall be amended as follows:

3.) The vote shall last for a maximum of four days (96 hours) and require a quorum present in the confirmation vote. No Senator shall be prohibited from voting until after the nominee has received enough votes to pass or fail confirmation, at which point vote changes shall be prohibited.

People's and Region's Senate
---

Sponsor: North Carolina Yankee
Status: Final Vote

The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This resolution seeks to address many of the problems that transpired during the recent crisis as it pertains to the Senate rules. Among them would be the creation of a semi-code of conduct for the presiding officers, the quorum requirement established in the definitions section is now applied to all votes except those that require 2/3rds of of the membership under the constitution (expulsion/impeachment). This is to prevent the incident where a vote was closed after a few minutes with only one voter.

[Sestak]

So, first immediate issue (potentially) that I notice here is that this de facto changes majority threshold from 9+VP or 10 to simply 10; a bill with 9+VP support could essentially be filibustered by the 9 opposed by refusing to vote, with nuclear option on the rules being the only recourse to pass it.

I don’t know if I find that the best idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, first immediate issue (potentially) that I notice here is that this de facto changes majority threshold from 9+VP or 10 to simply 10; a bill with 9+VP support could essentially be filibustered by the 9 opposed by refusing to vote, with nuclear option on the rules being the only recourse to pass it.

I don’t know if I find that the best idea.

We could amend the quorum definition to include the VP+9 scenario.

[Joseph Cao]

So, first immediate issue (potentially) that I notice here is that this de facto changes majority threshold from 9+VP or 10 to simply 10; a bill with 9+VP support could essentially be filibustered by the 9 opposed by refusing to vote, with nuclear option on the rules being the only recourse to pass it.

I don’t know if I find that the best idea.

We could amend the quorum definition to include the VP+9 scenario.

Would this work?

4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than nine members plus the President of the Senate in the event of a tiebreaking vote, and ten members otherwise.

[Sestak]

So, first immediate issue (potentially) that I notice here is that this de facto changes majority threshold from 9+VP or 10 to simply 10; a bill with 9+VP support could essentially be filibustered by the 9 opposed by refusing to vote, with nuclear option on the rules being the only recourse to pass it.

I don’t know if I find that the best idea.

We could amend the quorum definition to include the VP+9 scenario.

Would this work?

4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than nine members plus the President of the Senate in the event of a tiebreaking vote, and ten members otherwise.

Not quite, needs to just be “ten members, or nine members as well as the President of the Senate”. The issue we’re trying to resolve here is if nine senators are voting for something and the other nine abstain. It’s not a tiebreak scenario but it should still be quorum if VP is there and indicates ‘present’ or the like.

[AGA]

I would rather bring the quorum threshold down to nine. Otherwise, this seems reasonable.

[Joseph Cao]

So, first immediate issue (potentially) that I notice here is that this de facto changes majority threshold from 9+VP or 10 to simply 10; a bill with 9+VP support could essentially be filibustered by the 9 opposed by refusing to vote, with nuclear option on the rules being the only recourse to pass it.

I don’t know if I find that the best idea.

We could amend the quorum definition to include the VP+9 scenario.

Would this work?

4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than nine members plus the President of the Senate in the event of a tiebreaking vote, and ten members otherwise.

Not quite, needs to just be “ten members, or nine members as well as the President of the Senate”. The issue we’re trying to resolve here is if nine senators are voting for something and the other nine abstain. It’s not a tiebreak scenario but it should still be quorum if VP is there and indicates ‘present’ or the like.

Sure. I guess the concern in my mind is making clear when the threshold is ten and when it becomes 9+VP, and tiebreaks are the most obvious case for which the latter is true. But if exactly nine Senators vote within the voting period then it isn’t a quorum since the VP has no reason to jump in usually for the conditions under consideration here, the exception being tiebreakers as mentioned.

I would rather bring the quorum threshold down to nine. Otherwise, this seems reasonable.

Usually quorum is supposed to be an indication of a majority of Senators being present, no? Nine isn’t a majority, it’s a tied Senate.

[Sestak]

snip

Presumably the VP could be contacted in the event of a vote that’s 9-0 to ask if they would be willing to post establishing their ‘presence’ and thus a quorum. But again, 9-0 with VP announcing support should be a quorum if we want to make this change.

[Joseph Cao]

So nine Senators may or may not form a quorum depending on whether the VP can be bothered to show up.

Has a certain charm to it.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

So nine Senators may or may not form a quorum depending on whether the VP can be bothered to show up.

Has a certain charm to it.

Very senate-y.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, first immediate issue (potentially) that I notice here is that this de facto changes majority threshold from 9+VP or 10 to simply 10; a bill with 9+VP support could essentially be filibustered by the 9 opposed by refusing to vote, with nuclear option on the rules being the only recourse to pass it.

I don’t know if I find that the best idea.

We could amend the quorum definition to include the VP+9 scenario.

Would this work?

4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than nine members plus the President of the Senate in the event of a tiebreaking vote, and ten members otherwise.

Not quite, needs to just be “ten members, or nine members as well as the President of the Senate”. The issue we’re trying to resolve here is if nine senators are voting for something and the other nine abstain. It’s not a tiebreak scenario but it should still be quorum if VP is there and indicates ‘present’ or the like.

Abstain would be "present on the vote", no?

The other nine would have to completely boycott the thread during the vote. That was the way I interpreted my wording anyway.

[Joseph Cao]

I interpreted it the same way Yankee did when making my post. Sestak's intent was clear to me, eh.

Anyway:

4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than:

a) nine members plus the President of the Senate in the event of a tiebreaking vote, or if a vote by the President of the Senate is required in order to establish a present and voting majority within the Senate, and

b) ten members otherwise.

Not an amendment per se, but I'm open to modifying the wording to make it clearer or less circuitous or however strikes the Senate's fancy.

[Joseph Cao]

Would appreciate the rest of the Senate's thoughts on this proposal before we go ahead and act on it.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

seems good to me.

[wxtransit]

I would support Cao's proposal as an amendment. Seems to make the resolution as watertight as possible.

[Joseph Cao]

Right then, formally offering this as an amendment.

Senate Resolution

To amend the Senate Rules so as to preserve the rights of Senators under the constitution.

Be it resolved in the Senate Assembled, that the rules be amended as follows:

Protecting the Constitution and Senators' Rights Resolution

Section 1: Clause 4 of the Definitions shall be amended as follows:

4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than:

a) nine members plus the President of the Senate in the event of a tiebreaking vote, or if a vote by the President of the Senate is required in order to establish a present and voting majority within the Senate, and

b) ten members otherwise.

Section 2: Article 1, Clause 7 shall read as follows:

7. No Presiding Officer operating under the rules of this chamber shall
       1. Deny or inhibit the powers of the Senate as expressed in the Constitution.
       2. Subordinate the Senate to another branch or subvert the co-equal status of the Legislative Branch.
       3. Prematurely end an objection or vote change period.
       4. Close a vote before a quorum has had a reasonable opportunity to vote.

Section 3: Article 2, Clause 3 sub clause a) shall be altered as follows:

a.) The first 15 open threads shall be open to all legislation initially regarding bills, resolutions or constitutional amendments. Legislation shall be brought up into these 15 slots by the PPT in the order of their introduction, unless the sponsor already has two or more pieces of legislation on the Senate floor. Legislation from Senators who do not already have two bills on the floor shall take priority until all such other legislation is completed. The PPT shall be the Presiding Officer for these open threads.

Section 4: Article 3, Clause 3 shall be amended as follows:

3.) If judged hostile by the sponsor, or if a Senator has objected, a vote shall be started by the PPT once the amendment has been on the floor twenty four hours. The vote shall last for three days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment, at which point Senators who have voted shall be prohibited from changing their votes and the vote shall be declared final. No amendment vote shall be declared passed unless a quorum has voted on the amendment.

Section 5: Article 4, Clause 4 shall be amended as follows:

4.) When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 120 hours, any Senator may call for a vote on said legislation. The presiding officer shall open a vote if no other member of the Senate objects within 24 hours of the call for a vote. When the legislation has been on the floor for more than 120 hours, any Senator may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of three-fifths of the Senate (with a quorum present in the vote), the Senate shall end debate, and proceed to a final vote. If the legislation has been on the floor for more than 168 hours, or debate has ceased for 24 hours, a simple majority (with a quorum present in the vote) is needed in order to end the debates. The presiding officer shall then open a final vote.

Section 6: Article 5 Clause 3 shall be amended as follows:        

3.) For the motion to table to pass, two-thirds of those voting (excluding abstentions and with a quorum present in the vote) must support the motion.

Section 7: Article 6, Clause 1 shall be amended as follows:

1.) Final Votes and veto overrides votes shall last for a maximum of 4 days (i.e. 96 hours). No final vote may be ended without a quorum present in the vote. A final vote may be ended earlier than 96 hours:

a. If the vote has a majority to pass or fail, then the Presiding officer may call 24 hours for Senators to vote or change their votes.

b. If all Senators have voted and the result is unanimous for or against, then the Presiding Officer may end the vote immediately.

Section 8: Article 7, Clause 3 shall be amended as follows:

3.) The vote shall last for a maximum of four days (96 hours) and require a quorum present in the confirmation vote. No Senator shall be prohibited from voting until after the nominee has received enough votes to pass or fail confirmation, at which point vote changes shall be prohibited.

People's and Region's Senate
---

24 hours to object to it if anyone is so inclined.

[WD]

Objection. Just want to note that at the beginning of the 108th Senate, we expanded the number of slots, so the part that says “Legislation shall be brought up into these 15 slots by the PPT in the order of their introduction” should be 20, not 15.

[Joseph Cao]

Objection. Just want to note that at the beginning of the 108th Senate, we expanded the number of slots, so the part that says “Legislation shall be brought up into these 15 slots by the PPT in the order of their introduction” should be 20, not 15.

That's a separate part of the bill. My amendment is Section 1, the addition to the definitions.

Feel free to make a separate amendment for that though, I don't mind.

[Joseph Cao]

Anyway, no objections having been made to the text of this amendment, consider it adopted.

[Joseph Cao]

Objection. Just want to note that at the beginning of the 108th Senate, we expanded the number of slots, so the part that says “Legislation shall be brought up into these 15 slots by the PPT in the order of their introduction” should be 20, not 15.

There's still time to submit an amendment to this effect if you want.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It was my plan to update the wiki first and make sure all recent rules amendments were included, but by the time I got on vacation and composed this test, it slipped my mind. The reason I went with 15 was to only target the non-special slots and that was what the current OSPR on the wiki had for them.

[Joseph Cao]

I think that would technically be 18 non-special slots in that case. I wasn't sure about the 20 figure WD got in the first place since we only expanded the regular slots to that number.

[WD]

I think that would technically be 18 non-special slots in that case. I wasn't sure about the 20 figure WD got in the first place since we only expanded the regular slots to that number.

Am I misreading something? Because looking at the noticeboard from last session and the one for this one, it is 20 regular slots and then 5 special slots.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think that would technically be 18 non-special slots in that case. I wasn't sure about the 20 figure WD got in the first place since we only expanded the regular slots to that number.

Am I misreading something? Because looking at the noticeboard from last session and the one for this one, it is 20 regular slots and then 5 special slots.

Basing it off of what's on a noticeboard is less than ideal. Sometimes PPTs don't include unused slots and well let's be honest, sometimes the PPT can just be on crack.

I would say search the board for rules resolutions that passed. If I have time tomorrow I am going to try and get the rules wiki page up to day myself.