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.
The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on a huge and nuanced constitutional question: Can legislative leaders independently decide whether bills will or will not go to the governor’s desk once they are adopted by the House and the Senate.
The arguments in the first-of-its-kind case are a step toward determining the fate of nine bills passed by both chambers but were still being reviewed by clerks when Republicans took control of the House in January 2025. The bills have languished since then in the House clerk’s office on the orders of House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township).
The nine bills in limbo would require public employers to pick up a larger share of employee health insurance costs, exempt public assistance payments from debt collection, move corrections officers into the Michigan State Police pension system, and allow Detroit historical museums to seek a millage.
Senate Democrats want the Supreme Court to rule the bills must go to Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Technically, the arguments were about whether the Supreme Court should decide to hear the case (which could mean more arguments in a future session) or simply let the appeals court decision stand.
“If the House’s anti-majoritarian tactic is allowed to succeed, it will unilaterally and drastically change Michigan’s bicameral legislature, its separation of powers, our checks and balances, and the majoritarian principles which underlie everything we do in state and local government in this state,” the Senate Democrats’ attorney Mark Brewer told the court. He said no legislative leader should have unilateral power to stop a bill once it has been approved by both the House and Senate.
But House Republican attorney Kyle Asher said the leaders of the House and the Senate do have that power because the Michigan Constitution leaves them wide latitude, even if that power has not previously been used.
“Nothing in the constitution says who must present the bills, nothing in the constitution says every bill must be presented, nothing in the constitution says when a bill must be presented,” he said. “That’s all left to the Legislature through the Legislature’s rules. It’s always been left to the Legislature.”
Asher argued language in the Michigan Constitution’s presentment clause is often misinterpreted as a requirement, but he said it merely states the fact that a bill cannot become a law without first being presented to the governor.
“It’s a mere predicate step that has to occur before a bill can become law,” he said. “It’s not a requirement that every bill must be presented.”
Lower courts have held the House Republicans acted unconstitutionally by refusing to forward the bills to Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The Senate Democrats want the Supreme Court to order the House to comply with that determination. Whitmer has not weighed in on the case.
The Supreme Court is in a corner here. It has no police force to enforce its decisions. That belongs with the executive branch. It has no budget power. That is the Legislature’s purview. The authority of the courts is derived from the goodwill of the other two branches and public confidence that litigants will comply with judicial decisions.
So, the Court of Claims judge was acting with some prudent restraint when she ruled the bills must go to the governor, but did not issue an order to enforce the decision. The Court of Appeals also held that the Constitution says the bills should go to the governor and instructed the judge to issue an order. Now, we’re waiting to see how the Supreme Court handles this quandary.
_______________________
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
Ds keep control: Democrats will keep control of the Michigan Senate after Chedrick Greene won the special election in the empty open 35th Senate district this week. “The seat representing parts of Midland, Bay, and Saginaw counties has been vacant since January 2025, when former state senator Kristen McDonald Rivet took her seat in Congress. Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s long delay in scheduling a special election was decried by Republicans as politically motivated. Democrats hold a slim majority in the Michigan Senate, which narrowed to a single senator when McDonald Rivet vacated the seat. If Jason Tunney, the Republican, had won the special election, the Legislature’s upper chamber would have been deadlocked, 19 Democrats to 19 Republicans, with Democratic Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist to cast the tie breaking vote… Greene had about a 20-point lead over Tunney. The special election was seen as a potential bellwether for this fall’s mid-term elections in Michigan. In 2024, the 35th District voted for Republican Donald Trump for president and Democrat Elissa Slotkin for U.S. Senate,” Michigan Public’s Steve Carmody reports.
Beydoun Charged: The Michigan Attorney General is charging a politically connected metro-Detroit businesswoman with misusing state funds. Nessel’s office has charged Fay Beydoun, “with 16 offenses tied to how she spent and documented expenses related to a $20 million state taxpayer-funded grant meant to create a business accelerator, according to court records. The attorney general's office, in an affidavit dated Monday, is seeking charges that include larceny by conversion, uttering and publishing, and conducting a criminal enterprise against Beydoun, a Democratic former appointee and fundraiser for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Conducting a criminal enterprise, which is a 20-year felony, carries the highest penalty of the charges issued… The affidavit indicates the investigation into Beydoun's expenses is ongoing, ‘and further charges are possible,’” The Detroit News’ Beth LeBlanc and Craig Mauger report.
Stabenow endorses: Former Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow changed her mind this week and decided to endorse in this year’s Democratic primary for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat. She’s backing U.S. Representative Haley Stevens. Stabenow says, “she believes the four-term congresswoman is the candidate who can beat Republican Mike Rogers and hold the seat for Democrats,” Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News reports. “Stevens of Birmingham is locked in a tight and increasingly nasty primary battle with state Sen. Mallory McMorrow of Royal Oak and physician Abdul El-Sayed of Ann Arbor. Michigan's Democratic Senate primary is one of the most competitive contests in the country this year after U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, opted not to seek reelection. The winner of the Aug. 4 primary will likely face Rogers in the November general election, with national Republicans targeting the seat as a top pick-up opportunity.”
_______________________
Yours in political nerdiness,
Rick Pluta & Zoe Clark
Co-hosts, It’s Just Politics
