A case of mistaken identity
Somehow a gambling bill became a liquor bill Thursday when Rep Joe Atkins (D) added a bevvy of liquor provisions from the existing liquor omnibus liquor bill, but none that would include Sunday growlers for small Minnesota brewers. Rep Atkins tried to justify the unusual procedures by shifting blame to the Senate.
“This is not my preferred approach to this bill,” Atkins said. “But these are all of the provisions proven to be noncontroversial. If we add Sunday growler sales, the Senate won’t take it up.”
In reality the Senate passed liquor a bill with Sunday growlers provisions, and with bipartisan support.
Can you really do that?
Remember the electronic gambling machines in bars that were supposed to pay for a new Minnesota Vikings Stadium? The bill in question was related to electronic gambling fraud, and electronic gaming machines. The shaky premise was that gaming machines are in bars, that means the bill being amended is about liquor. The move was unconventional enough to raise objections citing Rule of the House 3.21.
ARTICLE III – MOTIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND OTHER PROPOSITIONS 3.21 MOTIONS AND PROPOSITIONS MUST BE GERMANE.
(a) A motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration must not be admitted under guise of its being an amendment. A motion, amendment, or other proposition offered to the House is out of order if it is not germane to the matter under consideration. Whether a proposition is germane to the matter under consideration is a question to be decided by the presiding officer, who may put the question to the House. (b) An amendment to an amendment on the House floor must relate only to the primary amendment, without introducing any new subject. Speaker Thissen (D) did not rule on the objection, but put the rules in question to the members for a vote. To his credit Speaker Thissen was among those that voted to find the point of order “well taken.”
“I am going to vote with Drazkowski, as shocking as that may be.” said Rep. Tina Leibling (D).
