Michigan House Republicans responded Friday to a lawsuit from the Senate over nine bills bungled by Democrats during last year’s lame duck session.
In a legal filing Friday, attorneys for the lower chamber made it clear the House is under no obligation to finish the work left unresolved by a Democratic majority last year, and it doesn’t intend to.
The response comes just days after Senate Democrats filed the lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims against the Michigan House of Representatives, Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Twp., and his clerk over nine bills approved by the Senate during the waning days of the 2024 lame duck session that never moved to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s desk, a unprecedented situation former House Speaker Joe Tate, D-Detroit, has blamed on a “proofing and processing” delay.
Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
“The Senate’s complaint presents a simple question: does Michigan law impose a duty on the 103rd Legislature to present legislation passed by the 102nd Legislature? The answer is no,” the response read.
“The Senate’s claim that the current ‘House’ has a ‘constitutional duty to present these bills to the Governor’ is wrong because: (1) the business of the 102nd Legislature does not continue into the 103rd; (2) a past legislature cannot bind future legislatures; and (3) Michigan’s Constitution imposes no duty to present legislation upon any specified legislative body or officer.”
All nine bills initially passed the House, and were sent to the Senate, where they gained approval during an overnight session that stretched from Dec. 19 to Dec. 20. Tate adjourned the House on the morning of Dec. 19 after all Republicans and Rep. Karen Whitsett, D-Detroit, refused to vote on a slate of Democratic bills they claim would have hurt Michiganders.
Hall initiated a legal review of the bungled bills, but impatient Senate Democrats pressed ahead with the litigation that Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, blamed on the Republican House speaker.
Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
“The Michigan Constitution makes it abundantly clear: every bill passed by the legislature is required to be presented to the governor – and no one -especially an elected public servant in legislative leadership – is above the law,” Brinks said in a statement last week.
Attorneys with the Dykema law firm representing the House pointed to the Speech or Debate Clause in the Michigan Constitution that shields Hall from civil process and noted both Brinks and the Senate lack standing to initiate the lawsuit for numerous reasons.
The Speech or Debate Clause states, “Except as provided by law, senators and representatives shall be privileged from civil arrest and civil process during sessions of the legislature and for five days next before the commencement and after the termination thereof. They shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either house.”
The Republican response further notes Brinks herself “has sat on ready-to-present bills for far longer than the two weeks between when the 103rd Legislature convened on January 8th, and when the Senate authorized litigation on January 22nd,” pointing to Senate Bills 205, 206, and 207 that were held for 84 days.
“Likewise, the Constitution does not specify who must present a bill to the governor (as shown by the Senate’s shotgun approach of naming the House, its speaker, and its clerk),” the response read. “Nor does it contemplate a new legislature presenting a bill passed by a prior legislature. Quite the contrary, it ties presentation of a bill to the legislature that passed it, as makes sense, given that a past legislature cannot bind a future legislature.”
“Simply put, if the 102nd Legislature wanted to assure that bills it passed had an opportunity to become law, it needed to present them to the governor before the 103rd Legislature convened,” the filing read. “The 102nd Legislature’s failures start and end with the legislature.”
The legislation in limbo includes bills to increase the burden on taxpayers for state employee health care, shift corrections officers to the state police pension system, grant authority to tax downstate residents for museums, and exempt public assistance from debt collections, according to Bridge Michigan.
The Michigan Constitution states “every bill passed by the Legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law, and the governor shall have 14 days” to decide whether to sign or veto.
An unidentified source with knowledge of negotiations on the bills in limbo told The News Whitmer is “at best lukewarm” on the legislation.
The nine bills are intended to take effect in April, and it’s likely any decision by the Court of Claims will be appealed to a higher court.
Senate Democrats requested “immediate and expedited consideration” in the Court of Claims, while House Republicans are asking the court to schedule oral arguments in the case, the Detroit Free Press reports.
“The business of the 102nd Legislature ended upon the final adjournment of its second regular session, and did not carry-forward into the 103rd Legislature,” the response read.
“The Senate has failed to point to constitutional text, case law, or other authority that would support its novel claim that the 103rd Legislature has a duty … to present bills passed by a prior legislature,” it continued. “That is because none exists. This Court should decline the Senate’s request to make old business new again. The Senate’s attempt to resurrect dormant legislation should be rejected, its motion should be denied, and the case should be dismissed.”