I thought it was extremely close (in fact, I think they took the voice vote twice). What I didn't understand was this extreme aversion among delegates to take standing votes. I mean, the sighs were palpable when anyone suggested it. This rule in particular was important, whether one was for or against it in its amended form. It takes 30 seconds -- I told the SD15 leadership that I was unhappy with the sneaky manner of the process even more than the outcome.
Also unfortunately, I agree with jf55510 that the wording was imperfect. The ultimate function of a good chair is to explain what is being voted on, and when s/he is uncertain, to defer to the parliamentarian or to a member of the rules committee (this was never done) to explain the intent and ramifications of any change. Our SD15 chair and rules member were both eminently gifted at both. It's a shame that Sen. Shapiro, either b/c she had her agenda or because she was insufficiently skilled in parliamentary procedure, muddled the debate more than clarifying it.
BTW, SD15 was mostly for keeping the term limits. ("You're telling someone they can't vote for someone -- that's undemocratic," said someone in the caucus.) We voted largely for the Rule 43 compromise. I personally was against the motion to combine 40-42 -- I thought the items were different enough to consider separate without creating an inconsistent outcome since they do address different positions.
The motion to combine Rules 40-42 was close. I was surprised it won without a standing vote (most of SD17 voted in favor) but enough voted against to understand and agree to a standing vote. I read that you voted against my motion. I have no problem with that, though I am of a different opinion. See my post why I agree with term limits (and we should be consistent regarding their enforcement). It appeared that most of SD17 was mostly for keeping term limits.