Appellate Court to hear arguments in lawsuit Tuesday over nine bills not sent to Governor

The Michigan Court of Appeals will hear arguments Tuesday in the state Senate’s lawsuit against the state House of Representatives.
 
The Democratic-led Senate is suing the Republican-controlled House over nine bills that passed the legislature last term but didn’t physically make it to the governor before the new session started.
 
The bills would let corrections officers join the state police retirement system, help raise money for the Detroit Historical Museum, and create new protections for debtors going through bankruptcy, among other legislation.
 
All nine passed while Democrats oversaw both the House and Senate. Previous House leadership hadn’t finished the job of officially sending the bills to the governor when Republicans officially took control of the chamber in January.
 
Current House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp) said that’s not his problem.
 
“They screwed up, they made the mistake, the Democrats, and they’re mad and they’re taking it out on the state House,” Hall said.
 
Democrats, however, see it as a matter of respecting the state constitution.
 
The constitution orders that a bill “passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law.” It doesn’t require a timeline for that presentation process.
 
State Senator John Cherry (D-Flint) said that means it’s the House’s duty under the state constitution to forward bills to the governor once they’ve passed, regardless of when that happened.
 
“This lawsuit is really about whether we’re going to be a legislature that follows the constitution,” Cherry said.
 
In February, a lower court found the state constitution does require the House to send the bills over.
 
“Defendants’ position that they are exempt from this because they are the '103rd Legislature' is without merit,” Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel wrote.
 
Despite siding with the Senate on that question, Patel did not order the House to present the bills to the governor.
 
The Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear the case until the Court of Appeals had a crack at it.
 
Cherry said he hopes the Court of Appeals will take the Court of Claims decision further.
 
“What good is it to say things are required by our constitution but don’t attempt to actually enforce it?” Cherry said.
 
Meanwhile, Hall has used the lower court’s decision to claim victory in the matter since it effectively left him in charge of whether to transmit the bills or not. Hall said he’s confident the House will win on appeal too, arguing it’s not right to finish a prior legislature’s job.
 
“Let’s say we don’t present and then 50 years from now, they present the bills. Is that appropriate? Basically shopping for a future governor that will sign their bills. Most people would say that’s ridiculous. So that cut off has to occur somewhere,” Hall said.
 
Earlier this year, the House, under Hall, passed a resolution banning the chamber from forwarding any past bills to the governor.