John,

While some are telling their supporters that the bill is going to the floor tomorrow, we are hearing from a committee staffer that no decision has been made and the bill may still have to go before the committee again.

I compared, for you here, the tracking of hurricanes with the tracking of congressional bills. Did you poo poo that post as the furrynurs are? Getting nervous John?

Congresswoman Susan A. Davis's use of the phrase "in federal elections", to specify what she wants the federal congress to do where, is enlightened.

So many folks who rap on about such machine use, or the banning therof, do not specify which type of election is being talked about (local, county, state, or federal). It matters and it matters a bunch.

John, speaking of the Holt and Nelson bills ...

Another thing the furryners in the EI movement are heretofore missing about Nelson and Holt is that they are all amendments to the existing HAVA of Bob Ney "fame".

This is a critical factor when it comes to interpreting the eventual statute that comes out of the congressional sausage grinder.

This is important to those who matter, the federal tribunals and other courts that will decide what the legislation legally says.

In the final analysis it does not matter what furrynurs, poets, bards, pundits, or even the individual congress members think it says.

It matters only what the courts say it says in the final analysis, and in point of law.

The fact that Nelson / Holt is amending an existing law bears upon the canons of statutory construction in significant ways.

One obvious condition for those that matter to consider is what HAVA now says about any matter.

That will be given weight, and so the amendments to HAVA coming via Holt and Nelson will be given secondary importance where they do not specifically, clearly, and formally amend the existing text.

John,

I came across a document on the official website (don't tell anyone) that explains tracking a hurricane House Bill.

Let me preface it by saying I have been mentioning ad nauseum (because some people want to remain clueless) that HR 811 RH is an amendment in the nature of a substitute or replacement. That fact has legal and procedural consequences:

An amendment in the nature of a substitute is an amendment that is offered to the text of a bill; it generally replaces the entire bill. It should be distinguished from a substitute amendment, which is merely a substitute for another amendment that has been offered.

(Amendments, PDF page 21, emphasis mine). Then note this little jewel:

A distinction should be made between the order or sequence of voting on amendments and the sequence in which they may be offered. Amendments must be voted on in a definite sequence.

(id., at page 18 of PDF, emphasis mine). Then compare it with this:

An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill may be proposed before perfecting amendments to the pending portion of the original text have been offered, but may not be voted on until after such perfecting amendments have been disposed of.

(id., at page 21 of PDF, emphasis mine). So I can now address my theory about why there are conflicting statements by staffers about when votes will take place, on what, and in which sequence or order.

Since HR 811 RH is an amendment in the nature of a substitute, to the original HR 811 IH, and you report that there are amendments to HR 811 RH (these are called "perfecting amendments"), the sequence will be as follows:

1) a floor vote on all perfecting amendments;

2) a vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute HR 811 RH (as then amended if any perfecting amendments were passed);

3) if the amendment in the nature of a substitute HR 811 RH fails to be passed;

a) vote on the original HR 811 IH after further consideration; or

b) if HR 811 RH is passed, forget about HR 811 IH as it would then officially be history.

What do you think?

I am unaware of any evidence to suggest that the original version of the HR 811 bill will be voted on if the amended version fails, as you suggest, Dredd. If you have any evidence for that, please feel free to let me know where you get it.

As to the Nelson bill, you seem to be even more out there in LaLa Land, as I've found no evidence that the bill will ever see the light of day. Even in committee.

So just not sure where you're getting your information on parliamentary (or, in this case U.S. Congressional) procedure. Thus, you're continued posts along these lines continuing to be both puzzling and somewhat distracting since they don't seem to deal w/ any form of reality.

As mentioned, if you've got info to the contrary, I'd be happy to know about it!

Brad #4

They may not seem real to you because, as my link in post #3 shows, they come from the official GPO and are written by the official parliamentarians of congress. Imagine that.

I learned a long time ago not to trust clerks or staff of court and clerks or staff of congress. They are too imaginative. I like the horses mouth, the source.

Look up the term of art "amendment in the nature of a substitute", which is what HR 811 RH is.

The term of art "perfecting amendment" means an amendment to fix or modify text language. Perfecting amendments are always voted on first, then amendments in the nature of a substitute follow them in voting order.

If the amendment in the nature of a substitute fails, the original version can still later be sent to the floor for a vote.

Since the changes to the original will have been rejected (by rejecting the change amendments), it seems logical that the voting shows that the congress members want the bill left in the original form.

It is just a simple Rules Committee / calendering matter at that point.