Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nittany Lion who wrote (7622)	2/26/1998 10:16:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

The following data is from the South Carolina Senate Journal dated 2/24/98 (http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/sj98/19980224.htm). According to the Charleston newspaper article, there was a procedural vote relative to video gaming that passed the Senate by a 25-13 vote. There is only one item handled by the Senate on 2/24 that had a 25-13 vote. That item is a "Motion for Special Order" for bill #469. The description of bill #469 indicates that this issue has NOTHING to do with video poker. However, the "Special Order" concept may play a big part in the video bill (947). Don't ask me to explain exactly how the "Special Order" concept figures in here because I am still trying to figure that one out. It may have something to do with a "minority report" for this bill or maybe directly related to a possible filibuster. In any event, here is how the vote on bill 469 breaks down. * = Sponsor of bill 947 ~ = Voted for Motion on bill 469 Senators Present Vote -------------- -------------- ------------- Branton Branton Branton Cork Cork Cork Courtney Elliott Elliott Elliott~ Ford Ford Ford Glover Glover Glover Hutto Hutto Hutto Jackson Jackson Jackson~ Land Land Leventis Leventis Leventis Matthews Matthews Matthews McConnell McConnell McConnell Mescher Mescher Mescher Moore Moore Moore~ Passailaigue Patterson Patterson Patterson Peeler Peeler Peeler Rankin Rankin Rankin~ Ravenel Ravenel Ravenel Saleeby Saleeby Saleeby Setzler Setzler Setzler~ Short Short Short~ Washington Alexander* Alexander Alexander~ Anderson* Anderson Anderson~ Bryan* Bryan Bryan~ Courson* Drummond* Drummond Drummond~ Fair* Fair Fair~ Giese* Giese Giese~ Gregory* Gregory Gregory~ Grooms* Grooms Grooms~ Hayes* Hayes Hayes~ Holland* Holland Holland~ Lander* Lander Lander~ Leatherman* Leatherman Leatherman~ Martin* Martin Martin~ McGill* McGill McGill~ O'Dell* O'Dell O'Dell~ Reese* Reese Russell* Ryberg* Ryberg Ryberg~ Smith* Smith Smith~ Thomas* Thomas Thomas~ Waldrep* Waldrep Wilson* Wilson Wilson~ So...what does this mean? If one presumes, as the newspaper suggests, that this vote is an indicator of Senate sentiment about video poker, then one can infer the following: - All the 947 sponsors that voted on the 469 issue voted in favor. - There are 4 sponsors of 947 who either weren't present on 2/24 or did not vote on the 469 issue. If you add these 4 to the 25 who voted for the 469 issue you have the 29 votes needed. - There are 6 Senators who did NOT sponsor bill #947 but voted for the 469 issue. 23 + 6 = 29. It looks to me like this thing may come down to a single vote. Ack! TKA