A Legal Showdown Over Legislative Procedure in Michigan
A legal battle has emerged in Michigan, focusing on the procedural handling of nine bills, which have been caught in a legislative standoff. The dispute, involving the state Senate Democratic majority and Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.), reached the Michigan Court of Claims on Monday, where extensive arguments were presented.
The core of the conflict revolves around whether the Michigan House has the right to withhold bills indefinitely without forwarding them to the governor for approval or veto. Among the stalled policies are measures concerning the exemption of public assistance payments from debt collection and protections for public employee pensions.
These bills were passed during the previous legislative session when Democrats held sway over both chambers. However, they were not delivered to the governor before the Republican takeover of the House in January. This delay has prompted legal action from Senate Democrats.
Representing the Senate Democrats, attorney Mark Brewer referenced the Michigan Constitution, arguing that it mandates the transmission of approved bills to the governor. He cautioned against the potential for legislative chaos if the House retains the ability to withhold bills. Brewer stated, “It’s not going to be enough that bills pass by a majority of both bodies and they go to the governor. Every bill then can be held hostage.”
In response, House Republicans maintain that Hall is acting within his rights, asserting that the current legislature is not bound by the decisions of its predecessor. Hall has instructed the House clerk to retain the bills while a review is conducted.
The court also examined whether the House clerk is obligated to send the bills to the governor, regardless of the speaker’s directives. House GOP attorney Kyle Asher contended that the matter should be resolved internally within the legislative branch, suggesting the presence of a constitutional separation-of-powers issue. “The Legislature has tools – you know, political maneuvering, things that the Legislature can do to resolve this within the Legislature,” he emphasized.
Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel is tasked with reconciling the absence of a specific deadline for sending bills to the governor with the constitutional requirement to do so. She highlighted the potential for constitutional provisions to become ineffective without practical deadlines. Patel queried, “Is it your argument that the Legislature can just hold the bills indefinitely and not present them and doesn’t that eventuality run afoul of the pure language of the Constitution?”
The judge indicated her decision would be forthcoming in the next few days, with the possibility of an appeal following her ruling.
—
Read More Michigan News
