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.
All bills – all of ‘em – properly adopted by the Legislature must go to the governor to sign or veto regardless of who’s in charge. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld that constitutional principle when it issued an order this morning declining to hear the state House Republicans’ challenge of a lower court decision.
One of House Speaker Matt Hall’s (R-Richland Township) early power plays last year after Republicans took control of the House from Democrats was to order the clerk’s office to sit on nine bills adopted in the previous session (when there was a Democratic trifecta). The House Republicans argued the new majority was not required to finish business left undone by the previous Democratic majority. This was an unsettled question because it appeared no one had ever tried this before – and because departing majorities typically make sure the floors are swept before the new majority moves in.
The nine bills in play here 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. But the case itself is about constitutional powers and responsibilities.
Lower courts ruled with Senate Democrats that the Michigan Constitution requires all bills adopted by both chambers to be presented to the governor, who then has 14 days to sign or veto them.
The Michigan Supreme Court is dominated 6-1 by justices nominated by the Democratic Party or, in the case of Justice Noah Hood, appointed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Because the order is unsigned, we don’t know what the vote was to decline the case and there was no accompanying opinion stating the majority’s reasoning. But it is essentially adopting the reasoning of the Michigan Court of Claims.
The Supreme Court’s lone and lonely Republican, Justice Brian Zahra, wrote a dissent that declining the case “is an error that may have longstanding implications damaging the balance of power between this Court and the Legislature.”
We wrote about the case back in early May, right after the Supreme Court held a hearing on whether it would even take the case. The fact that the court just declined the case is a subtle distinction because it still requires some debate on the merits of the questions involved. In this case, that included separation of powers and the authority of each chamber to manage its internal affairs.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) said the Supreme Court order is a victory for the rule of law.
“The Supreme Court is reminding everyone who plays a role in our democracy that they are not above the law, and the Michigan Constitution must be followed,” she said. “At a time when too many in our national politics are playing fast and loose with power, this is a resounding win for the people who demand better, and it’s a stern warning to those who cheat under the guise of service.”
The next step is for the Michigan Court of Claims (backed by a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling) to issue an order to enforce its decision by instructing the House clerk (a Republican appointee) to forward the bills to Governor Gretchen Whitmer (who, we should note, has remained near silent on the case). Whitmer spokesperson Bobby Leddy said, “We are reviewing the court’s decision.”
House Republicans may have - or think they have - another card to play. Matt Hall has not been shy about testing the limits of his authority. We’ll see what happens next.
_______________________
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
Debate week: This week at the dinner table it was debates, debates, debates. Literally three debates in as many days. On Tuesday, just days after state Senator Mallory McMorrow suspended her campaign for U.S. Senate, Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens and former Wayne County health official Abdul El-Sayed met for their first televised debate. Find a recap here and a fact check here. Then, it was back-to-back Republican gubernatorial primary debates with Congressman John James, businessman Perry Johnson and former state Attorney General Mike Cox meeting Wednesday and Thursday nights. Get your recaps here and here and your fact checks from Bridge Michigan here and here.
Spoiled ballot: Speaking of McMorrow, if you’ve already cast an absentee ballot for the state Senator in Michigan’s U.S. Senate primary, you can still change your vote now that she’s withdrawn from the race. “Michigan law allows an absentee ballot to be disqualified and replaced. A signed written request must be submitted to the voter's local clerk's office by 5 p.m. on Friday, July 24th. That's the day before early voting begins statewide. Unsubmitted ballots can be spoiled in person at a clerk’s office until 4 p.m. Monday, Aug. 3, or surrendered at the polls,” Kalloli Bhatt and Edith Pendell report.
Voting monitors: Voting rights groups in Michigan are concerned by U.S. Department of Justice plans to station election monitors at polling places in Lansing, East Lansing and Detroit to observe primary elections in those strongly Democratic precincts. It is perfectly legal to observe precinct activities as long as there is no interference with running elections or voters casting their ballots. In fact, political parties and campaigns regularly place observers at polling places. What has voting rights advocates concerned is the possibility of Justice Department observers using the imprimatur of federal authority to go further than what’s legally allowed. Phil Mayor, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, told Rick that Justice Department monitors have a right to observe elections, just like anyone else. He said there may be some unresolved legal questions, but those rights go no further than any ordinary citizen’s right to act as a poll watcher. “Given this administration’s election denialism and many of the other ways the administration has sought to discourage voting or spread false narratives, we’re certainly concerned,” he said. “We’ll be watching the conduct of DOJ’s monitors carefully to ensure that they comply with the law, that they don’t interact with or harass voters.”
_______________________
Yours in political nerdiness,
Rick Pluta & Zoe Clark
Co-hosts, It’s Just Politics
_______________________
