A Legislative Stalemate Spurs Legal Action in Michigan
In a clash of political wills, Michigan’s Senate Democrats have taken legal action against House Republicans over the latter’s decision to withhold bills from Governor Gretchen Whitmer. This dispute is now under review by a Michigan Court of Claims judge following the submission of final legal briefs.
The legal filing by Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) accuses House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.) and his Republican colleagues of trying to circumvent constitutional mandates by retaining nine bills passed at the close of the last legislative session. These bills cover key topics such as the protection of public assistance from debt collection, public employee benefits, and funding for Detroit museums.
The crux of the legal debate revolves around whether legislative chambers can indefinitely hold bills after passage by both the House and Senate. Senate Democrats assert that the Michigan Constitution unambiguously requires all passed legislation to be sent to the governor, arguing that withholding them effectively equates to a veto, a power reserved solely for the governor.
Senator Brinks emphasized, “The constitution is clear: Every bill passed by the Legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law. And there is no shortage of precedent: For at least 150 years, Michigan governors have signed bills after the adjournment of the legislative session at which they were passed.”
The House Republicans, however, maintain that a legislative session cannot impose obligations on its successors. Their legal stance, detailed in a recent filing, states, “If there is any obligation at all to present a bill to the governor, that obligation must belong to the legislature that passed the bill — not a subsequent and wholly distinct legislative body, which cannot be legally bound by its predecessor.”
Speaker Hall contends that the holding of the bills is non-controversial and necessary for reviewing potential technical errors, despite the lack of a mechanism to amend them outside of new legislation. Additionally, the House Republicans argue that Hall’s actions are protected from legal scrutiny as they pertain to his role as speaker, suggesting that this is an internal legislative matter beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
According to the Michigan Constitution, once a bill reaches the governor’s desk, she has 14 days to sign or veto it. However, there is no prescribed timeline for the legislature to deliver the bill post-adoption.
The resolution of this legal impasse now awaits the decision of Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel, who may call for oral arguments before issuing a ruling, potentially paving the way for future appeals.
—
Read More Michigan News
