SB 2017-056 - Amendment to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution (Failed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

(language other than English is difficult to enforce, what if someone has a username in Spanish or German with specific characters)

     That is an excellent point. Someone could have a username such that casting a vote in another language is inevitable. I think Clyde's amendment should cover this, since a candidate's username will be clearly recognizable without the use of a translator.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I second the call.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Interesting point. So could we just fix this by changing "account" to "registration" in the section that cinyc quoted?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay

[Associate Justice PiT]

So we vote nay so that the house can add Clyde's amendment? Is that how this works?

I think so, although if anyone has an alternate interpretation I'm open to hearing it.

Well,
As I proposed new rules for both the senate and the House (that the House chose to pass btw) and that I made many changes to the current senate rules, if you want to send back something to the House, you should add your amendment, and then the other chamber will choose to adopt it or not.
-Basically, 3 scenarios:
1)  if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to adopt this too: it goes to the president's desk.
2) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to reject it: end of the story for the bill.
3) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber adopts something different from the original bill: it goes back on the floor on the first chamber etc etc until both chambers agree on something similar where then it goes to the president desk.

     When you note that the House chose to pass it, do you mean that the Senate never passed it? Or do you mean rather that it is in effect now and we actually need to not kill this?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     *sigh*