Қатысушылардың қажетті ең төмен саны: Кворум туралы мәліметтер

Minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct business

A quorum is the minimum number of members of a group necessary to constitute the group at a meeting. In a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature), a quorum is necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons." In contrast, a plenum is a meeting of the full (or rarely nearly full) body. A body, or a meeting or vote of it, is quorate if a quorum is present (or casts valid votes). The term quorum is from a Middle English wording of the commission formerly issued to justices of the peace, derived from Latin quorum, "of whom", genitive plural of qui, "who". As a result, quora as plural of quorum is not a valid Latin formation. In modern times a quorum might be defined as the minimum number of voters needed for a valid election.

According to Robert, each assembly determines the number of members that constitutes a quorum in its governing documents (such as in its constitution, charter, bylaws or standing orders). The quorum may also be set by law. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states that the quorum set in an organization's bylaws "should approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions." In a committee of the whole or its variants, a quorum is the same as the assembly unless otherwise provided. In online groups, a quorum has to be determined in a different manner since no one is actually "present". The rules establishing such groups would have to prescribe this determination. An example is that a quorum in such groups could be established as "present" if enough members state that they are "present" at the designated meeting time.

The chairperson of the group has the responsibility to determine if a quorum is present. In addition, any member can raise a point of order about an apparent absence of a quorum. Because it is difficult to determine exactly when a quorum was lost, points of order relating to the absence of a quorum are "generally not permitted to affect prior action; but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retrospectively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal." Any other business that is conducted is not valid unless it is ratified at a later meeting where a quorum is present. However, there is no obligation to ratify such action and those responsible may be punished for their actions. This procedure does not exist in ordinary societies, since voluntary associations have no coercive power.

While Section 22 and section 39 of the Constitution of Australia set the quorum for sittings of the House of Representatives and Senate at one third of the whole number of MPs and senators, respectively, Parliament is permitted to change the quorum for each House by ordinary legislation. In the House of Representatives, the quorum was amended down to one fifth by the House of Representatives (Quorum) Act 1989, which means the quorum of the current House of 151 MPs is 31 MPs. In the senate, the quorum was amended down to one quarter by the Senate (Quorum) Act 1991, so 19 senators is a quorum. The quorum includes the occupant of the Chair, and is not reduced by the death or resignation of a member or senator. If at the beginning of a sitting the quorum is not met, the bells are rung for five minutes and a count is then taken; if the quorum is still not met the sitting is adjourned until the next sitting day. During the sitting, any MP or senator may draw attention to the lack of quorum in which the bells are rung for four minutes, and if a quorum is still not met the sitting is adjourned. Although quorum busting is virtually unheard of in Australia, it is not unknown for parties to deliberately use quorum counts as a disruptive tactic and there have been some suggestions to enact rules to restrict this practice; however, this is very difficult due to the explicit mention of a quorum in the constitution. It is considered disorderly to call attention to quorum when one exists, and members or senators who do so can be punished.

In the National Council of Austria at least one third of the representatives must be present, so that they may decide on a simple law (participation quorum of 33.3%). At least half of the members must participate if a constitutional law should pass the parliament (participation quorum of 50% based on the total number of members). Over and above that, constitutional laws require the consent of at least two thirds of the members present (quorum agreement of 66.6% based on the number of voting present).

In Canada, the Constitution Act, 1867 sets quorum for sittings of the House of Commons of Canada at 20 MPs. If a member calls for quorum to be counted and a first count shows there are fewer than 20 members, bells are rung to call in the members; if after 15 minutes there are still fewer than 20 members, the session is adjourned to the next sitting day; the members present sign a roll on the table of the house, and this list is included in the Journal of the House. There is no need for quorum when the attendance of the House is requested in the Senate of Canada, for example, when royal assent is being given to bills. The quorum of the Senate is 15.

In the German Bundestag more than half of the members (currently 369 out of 736) must be present so that it is empowered to make resolutions. It is however common that fewer members are present, because they can still make effective decisions as long as no parliamentary group or 5% of the members of the parliament are complaining about the lack of quorum. This, in rare cases, is used by opposition parties to delay votes.

Article 75 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong stipulates that the quorum required for the meetings of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo) as "not less than one half of its members". Between 1997 and 2012 the quorum was 30, and since 2012 it has been 35. Prior to 1997 transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the quorum was set at 20. The quorum for the panels, committees and subcommittees is, nevertheless, one third or three members, whichever the greater, as according to the Rules of Procedure. The three standing committees, namely, the Finance Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and Committee on Members' Interests, is exceptional that the quorums are 9, 3 and 3 respectively. Quorum busting was used at least twice since 1997. In 2005, when some pro democracy members of the council paid a silent tribute to late leader of the People's Republic of China, Zhao Ziyang, against the Rules of Procedure, the president of the council suspended the meeting. When the meeting was recalled, pro Beijing members refused to return to the chamber, forcing the meeting to be adjourned. On 27 January 2010, when five pro democracy members were intending to make their resignation speeches, pro Beijing members of the council left the chamber as a sign of protest. One of the pro Beijing members nevertheless stayed in the chamber to call for the quorum to be counted, effectively forcing the meeting to be adjourned. The resignation was intended as a de facto referendum across all five geographical constituencies of the territory, involving the entire electorate, which would not be officially recognised anyway. Most other factions, although against the move by these five Members, stayed in the chamber. On 2 May 2012, when the LegCo was debating a law change to bar resigning legislators to participate in by elections in 6 months, effectively discouraging any more "de facto" referendums, some of the five pro democracy members who resigned constantly issued quorum calls, especially when they were making their resignation speeches intended for 2 years before. In the nine hour meeting, 23 quorum calls were issued, taking up to 3 hours. When LegCo reconvened on 3 May, it was adjourned for lack of quorum amid a boycott by the pan democrats. The pro government members drew a timetable to ensure a quorum, but it failed to prevent another lack of quorum. On 18 June 2015, when the LegCo was due to vote on a resolution to amend the provisions for the election of the territory's Chief Executive, pro Beijing members left the chamber to force a quorum roll call to make sure that a sick member could be able to rush back to the chamber. However some of the members stayed behind, citing miscommunication, and the division proceeded with two members above the required quorum of 35. While the resolution was originally predicted to be narrowly defeated due to not able to get super majority support votes, it turned out to be a landslide defeat. Quorum busting and attempts to thwart it are also a common feature during the annual motion debate related to the 1989 Tiananmen massacre moved by pro democracy Members. The quorum is called to be counted from time to time by the pan democrats, in order to force the pro Beijing camp to keep some members in the chamber.

Article 100 of the Constitution of India stipulates that at least 10% of total number of members of the House must be present to constitute the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament. For example, if the House has the total membership of 250, at least 25 members must be present for the House to proceedings with its business. If at any time during a meeting of a House there is no quorum, the Chairman has to either adjourn the House or suspend it until there is a quorum. Some procedures do require minimum participation: a motion without notice to suspend the Standing Orders can be moved only if at least 60 members are present, and a personal vote requires at least 20 participating members.

Article 55 of the constitutions of Pakistan states that, if at any time during a sitting of the National Assembly the attention of the person presiding is drawn to the fact that less than one fourth of the total membership of the Assembly is present, he shall either adjourn the Assembly or suspend the meeting until at least one fourth of such membership is present, which comprises 87 out of total 342.

In Congress of the Philippines, half of the membership (13 in the Senate and 159 in the House of Representatives) is needed to muster a quorum. If someone contests the lack of quorum, a roll call shall be done, and if there is indeed less than a majority of members present, the meeting shall be adjourned. Both majority and minority blocs in Congress have used the lack of quorum in defeating bills that they do not want to be passed without putting it to a vote. After an election during the lame duck session, quorums are notoriously difficult to muster, more so in the House of Representatives as winning incumbents may opt to go on vacation, and defeated incumbents may opt to not to show up.

In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the House of Commons has a quorum of 40 MPs, including the Speaker, out of 650 members of the House. There is no need for a quorum to be present at all times: Commons debates could theoretically continue even if only one MP and the Speaker were present. However, if a division is called and fewer than 40 MPs are present, then a decision on the business being considered is postponed and the House moves on to consider the next item of business. The quorum for votes on legislation in the House of Lords is 30, but just three of the 753 peers, including the Lord Speaker, are required to be present for a debate to take place. Historically, the quorum was a select group of the justices of the peace in each county in early modern Britain. In theory, they were men experienced in law, but many of the quorum were appointed because of their status. Some legislation required the involvement of a member of the quorum (e. g., granting a license to a badger). In practice, they increasingly were not qualified, as the proportion in the quorum rose faster than the proportion who were called to the bar or practising lawyers. By 1532, an average 45% of justices of the peace nationally were of the quorum. In Somerset, the proportion rose from 52% in 1562 to 93% in 1636. By then, most of those not on the quorum were new to the bench. Sometimes justices of the peace were removed from the quorum as a disciplinary measure less drastic than removal from the bench.

The large deliberative bodies of the United Nations (the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council, as well as their subsidiary organs) generally require the attendance of one third of the membership (currently 65 states in the General Assembly and 18 in ECOSOC) to conduct most business, but a majority of members (currently 97 states in the General Assembly and 28 states in ECOSOC) in order to take any substantive decisions. The rules of the United Nations Security Council make no provisions for quorum, but nine votes are in all cases required to pass any substantive measure, effectively meaning that a meeting with fewer than nine members in attendance is pointless.

The Texas Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in each chamber of the Texas Legislature for a quorum to be present (unlike the United States Congress, which only requires a simple majority). As such, on several occasions, the minority party has engaged in a walkout so as to prevent a quorum. During the 2003 Texas redistricting, the majority Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives sought to carry out a controversial mid decade congressional redistricting bill which would have favored Republicans by displacing five Democratic U. S. Representatives from Texas, nicknamed the "Texas Five", from their districts. The House Democrats, certain of defeat if a quorum were present, took a plane to the neighboring state of Oklahoma to prevent a quorum from being present (and thus the passage of the bill). The group gained the nickname the "Killer Ds". Similarly, the minority Democrats in the Texas Legislature's upper chamber, the Texas Senate, fled to New Mexico to prevent a quorum of the Senate to prevent a redistricting bill from being considered during a special session. The group, nicknamed the "Texas Eleven", stayed in New Mexico for 46 days before John Whitmire returned to Texas, creating a quorum. Because there was now no point in staying in New Mexico, the remaining ten members of the Texas Eleven returned to Texas to vote in opposition to the bill. Democratic House Representatives in Texas fled the state on the 12th of July 2021 to block the passage of a bill that would change voting rules. At least 51 Democrats – the number needed to break quorum – left the state to Washington D. C. via plane. On 10 August 2021 the House authorised arrest warrants for the legislators breaking quorum. After 38 days quorum was regained when three Democrats, Garnet Coleman, Armando Walle and Ana Hernandez returned, though with Coleman providing quorum from home due to serious illness and Republican Steve Allison isolating in a side room of the chamber due to contracting COVID 19.

During the 2011 Wisconsin protests, fourteen Democratic members of the Wisconsin Senate went to Illinois in order to bust the necessary 20 member quorum. Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives did the same in order to block another union related bill, causing the legislative clock on the bill to expire. Traveling out of their state placed these legislators beyond the jurisdiction of state troopers who could compel them to return to the chamber.

In 2001, Democratic members of the House of Representatives staged a five day walkout over redistricting. Then Representative Mark Hass participated in the walkout and later noted that although the tactic worked, Democrats "got beaten up pretty hard." Beginning in May 2019, Republican state senators in Oregon made a series of walkouts in opposition to an emissions trading bill. On 20 June 2019, Gov. Kate Brown authorized the Oregon State Police to bring back the senators, who had left the Oregon State Capitol to bust the needed quorum. State Sen. Brian Boquist said that he told the state police superintendent to "send bachelors and come heavily armed. I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It's just that simple."

The similar tactic of a disappearing quorum—refusing to vote although physically present on the floor or walking out before a vote–was used by the minority to block votes as a filibuster in the United States House of Representatives from 1842 (when a speaking time limit was introduced) until 1890, when Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed ordered that members who were present would count for the purpose of a quorum even if they did not reply to the roll call.