Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session
the dissolution of state funds and accounts and prohibiting the state from changing the purpose of any state fund or program revenue appropriation account (first consideration).
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Adopted, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
This proposed constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2009 legislature on
first consideration, provides that the legislature may abolish by law a state fund, or
program revenue appropriation account thereof, other than a fund or account related
solely to the issuance or payment of public debt or other obligation, only if two-thirds
of all the members elected to each house concur therein.
Any state fund, or program revenue appropriation account thereof, created by
law before, on, or after the date of ratification of this amendment remains in effect
until abolished by law, and the purpose of the fund or account may not be changed
by law.
The proposal also provides that a state fund, or program revenue appropriation
account thereof, created before, on, or after the date of ratification of this amendment
may not be lapsed, transferred, or expended in any manner that would conflict with
the purpose of the fund or account. If a state fund, or program revenue appropriation
account thereof, is abolished, all unencumbered moneys in the fund or account as of
the date the fund or account is abolished are transferred to the general fund of the
state.
A proposed constitutional amendment requires adoption by two successive
legislatures, and ratification by the people, before it can become effective.
Sponsors
Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Ballweg (R) , Bies (R) , Brooks (R) , Davis (R) , Gottlieb (R) , Gunderson (R) , Gundrum (R) , Honadel (R) , Kaufert (R) , Kerkman (R) , Kestell (R) , Kleefisch (R) , Knodl (R) , Kramer (R) , LeMahieu (R) , Lothian (R) , M. Williams (R) , Montgomery (R) , Mursau (R) , Murtha (R) , Nass (R) , Nerison (R) , Nygren (R) , Petersen (R) , Pridemore (R) , Ripp (R) , Roth (R) , Spanbauer (R) , Stone (R) , Strachota (R) , Suder (R) , Tauchen (R) , Van Roy (R) , Vos (R) , Ziegelbauer (I) , Zipperer (R)
Votes
Suspending the rules (to take a vote immediately) needs a two-thirds majority — a higher bar than passing the bill, which needs a simple majority. That's why a suspension motion can show more Ayes than the passage vote that follows it. Glossary
Assembly: Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Ways and Means and take up, Ayes 54, Noes 44
Passed 54–44 Apr 20, 2010 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Feb 17, 2009 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Tauchen, Strachota, Gottlieb, Ripp, Ziegelbauer, Nerison, Honadel, Petersen, Suder, Nygren, Kaufert, Montgomery, Bies, Kestell, Knodl, Ballweg, Van Roy, A. Ott, Davis, Lothian, Pridemore, Zipperer, Mursau, Murtha, Gundrum, Nass, Stone, LeMahieu, Brooks, Kleefisch, M. Williams, Gunderson, Vos, Kramer, Kerkman, Roth and Spanbauer;Cosponsored by Senators Plale, Cowles, Carpenter, Holperin, Grothman, Kanavas, A. Lasee, Kedzie, Harsdorf, Olsen, Kapanke, Lazich, S. Fitzgerald, Schultz, Darling, Leibham and Hopper
- Feb 17, 2009 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Ways and Means
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Ways and Means and take up, Ayes 54, Noes 44
- Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly
Failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1