Hi! You're reading the It's Just Politics newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox, and listen to the It's Just Politics podcast for all the political news you need each week.
There are still nine bills stalled – if not dead – that were adopted by the Michigan Legislature in the 2023-2024 session that, contrary to constitutional principles outlined in Schoolhouse Rock, remain locked away in a cabinet or somewhere in the House Clerk’s office.
We’ve covered this before in Part I and Part II (and, unlike the Godfather movies, Part III - what you’re reading here - we hope is just as good).
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel ruled House Republicans should release the bills so they go to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her to sign or veto. But, surprisingly, Patel declined to issue an order to enforce her opinion.
Let’s just say, Judge Patel voted the bills off the island, but didn’t send a boat.
It’s been a flashpoint in the Legislature as House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) – never shy about displaying a power flex – exploited a gap in state law to hang onto the bills. Hall says any problem lies with former House Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) for failing to ensure all of the previous session’s business was wrapped up on his watch. The bills, Hall says, are permanently parked.
The Senate Democrats argue that Article 4, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution makes it plain:
“Every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law, and the governor shall have 14 days measured in hours and minutes from the time of presentation in which to consider it.”
The key phrase being “every bill.” The Senate Dems say the House has an automatic duty to send the bills to the governor no matter who is in charge or when they were adopted. The Republicans argue there is also a principle that no legislature can tell a future legislature what it must do.
Which brings us to now as the Supreme Court this week said “no” to a bypass request from Senate Democrats, who wanted to speed things up. Their request is to shoot past the Michigan Court of Appeals for an ASAP decision from the state’s highest court. The Supreme Court did, however, order the three-judge appeals court panel to put the case on a fast track.
The Senate Dems’ gambit was smart, but the Supreme Court’s decision is wise.
This is what the courts call “a matter of first impression.” It’s a unique situation and whatever the court does vis-a-vis the nine bills will be precedent-setting, especially on separation-of-powers questions. So there are unknown consequences since whatever logic the court applies here can also be applied to future cases with similar questions in play.
But perhaps more significantly, trust in the court’s independence is also at stake.
Justices are legal and political creatures. In almost all cases, they are nominated at party conventions even if they appear on the ballot without party affiliation. And the political parties expend money and other resources to get their Supreme Court nominees elected. So the court – with a majority of Democratic Party-nominated justices – no matter how they rule, will face blowback for either playing favorites or lacking party loyalty.
The nine bills deal with public employee pensions, a regional millage to support Detroit museums and shielding public assistance payments from debt collection. The Michigan Information and Research Service’s Capitol reporter Samantha Shriber offered this analysis on this week’s IJP podcast:
“I do think it is worth keeping in mind these bills are heavily union-backed … The majority of the Michigan Supreme Court is made up of people endorsed by the Michigan Democratic Party. The MDP has a huge union activist presence. So I am curious, do Michigan Supreme court justices act fast and make a ruling that could be influenced by the Democratic Party members who put them on the ballot to begin with?”
It makes sense for the state’s highest court to want the questions in these issues argued, pondered, and answered multiple times in front of lower courts before the justices issue what is likely (but not definitely) the final decision in this case. Also, the Supreme Court might avoid some blowback if the Court of Appeals panel delivers an acceptable ruling and a majority could then simply decline the case with an unsigned order.
This may not be an edge-of-your seat thriller (we still haven’t seen “President” Robert DeNiro in “Zero Day,” but it’s on our list) but it is high stakes both institutionally and politically with Michigan politicos watching the twists and turns.
Digging deeper: Complicating things, is the question of whether Governor Whitmer actually wants these bills sent her way. Democrats are quietly frustrated that Whitmer has failed to weigh in. This matters because part of the Republican case is the courts should stay out of internal operational questions of the legislative branch. (Judge Patel’s split-the-difference decision acknowledges that.) If Whitmer were to engage and argue the executive branch has a stake, that could take the separation-of-powers argument off the table. In fact, the Senate Democrats argue on their own that refusing to send the bills to Whitmer is an effective veto and encroaches on executive authority.
______________________
Have questions about Michigan politics? Or, just want to let us know what you want more of (less of?) in the newsletter? We always want to hear from you! Shoot us an email at politics@michiganpublic.org!
_______________________
_______________________
What we’re talking about at the dinner table
U.S. Senate Race: Democratic state Senator Mallory McMorrow made it official this week with a video on Wednesday making her the first candidate, Dem or Republican, to announce for Michigan’s 2026 open U.S. Senate seat. Team McMorrow was then quick to announce that she had raised a million dollars within 48 hours of going public. But, we know McMorrow is unlikely to be the only Democrat in the field. Among those still considering, or strongly considering: Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens, Democratic Congresswoman Kristen McDonald Rivet, outgoing Director of Wayne County’s Health, Human and Veteran Services Department Abdul El-Sayed, and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Things still remain relatively quiet on the Republican side as folks wait to see which offices former Gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon and Congressman John James toss their hats in.
Voting integrity: Michigan Secretary of State (and gubernatorial candidate) Jocelyn Benson announced this week her office found 16 non-citizens likely cast ballots in last year’s presidential election in Michigan. “Benson said it confirms many studies that show that voting by non-citizens in Michigan and the U.S. is very rare,” Michigan Public’s Tracy Samilton reported. In fact, that ends up being about, “0.00028% of the roughly 5.7 million votes cast in the election. Benson said non-citizens voting is a serious issue, but it should be addressed ‘with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.’ She said the tiny fraction of potential cases in Michigan do not justify proposed laws to require showing proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.” As Rick reported last month, Republicans have proposed an “amendment to the Michigan Constitution that would require people to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. The measure would also require people to show a government-issued ID before they cast a ballot.” Meanwhile, across Lake Michigan this week, Wisconsin voters approved a similar GOP-led voter ID law.
MPC ruling: Speaking of Benson, the state’s chief campaign finance act enforcer says it is not a violation of the ban on gifts from lobbyists for elected officials to attend the posh (and pricey) annual Detroit Regional Chamber conference on Mackinac Island without paying the admission fee. The annual event brings together elected officials, business leaders and not-for-profit organizations to network and bargain on policy questions. It’s often a venue for big policy announcements and events. For example, Governor Whitmer signed a no-fault auto insurance overhaul on the porch of the Grand Hotel in 2019. Elected officials and candidates often hold event-adjacent fundraisers (to the frustration of conference organizers). In a preliminary opinion, Benson’s office held that the free admission violates the gift ban. This week’s final ruling says elected officials have a unique function at the conference so it is not a violation of the gift ban.
_______________________
Yours in political nerdiness,
Rick Pluta & Zoe Clark
Co-hosts, It’s Just Politics
________________________
IJP ON THE ROAD:
Want to get political updates from Zoe and Rick straight to your inbox? Sign up for the It's Just Politics newsletter!
