By: Mikaylah Heffernan

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

Lansing, MICHIGAN – The Michigan Court of Claims has declared that the previously used legislative practice of “adopt and amend” is unconstitutional under Article 2, § 9 of the Michigan Constitution, as it barred the Michigan electorate from proposing, enacting, and rejecting laws through the established initiative process.

Under the Michigan State Constitution, an issue may become a statewide ballot proposal through several different mechanisms, including through a ballot initiative, as allowed by Article 2, § 9. Michigan Election Law, specifically 1954 PA 116, outlines the requirements and circumstances under which citizens may add statewide proposal to the ballot. The proposal must serve the following reasons; to enact a new law, approve or reject an existing law, or amend the constitution. In order to complete this process, the responsible party must gather signatures from registered electors of no less than eight percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor in the last gubernatorial election.

In 2018, two petitions were circulated, one to set rates for accumulated paid sick time, and the other to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour, including tipped employees who currently earn a lower minimum wage. Article 2, § 9 of the constitution allows the legislature to adopt ballot proposals as written by a majority vote, and the Michigan legislature voted to adopt both acts, keeping the proposals off the ballot. Had these proposals passed via a ballot vote, they could only have been amended by a three-fourths majority in the Legislature.

After the statewide election in November of 2018, the legislature substantially amended the legislation, compromising the original purpose. In May of 2021, several interested groups brought a petition directly to the Court of Claims, challenging the constitutionality of the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act on the basis of the ‘adopt and amend’ procedure used by the legislature.

In the July 2022 ruling, the Court found that the enacting and amending of the Acts during the same legislative session violated the purpose of Article 2, § 9, and that under Article 2, § 9, the Legislature has only three options, adopt the initiative as presented, reject the petition, or propose a new alternative law.  In the decision, Judge Shapiro stated the following; “Once the Legislature adopted the Earned Sick Time Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Act, it could not amend the laws within the same legislative session. To hold otherwise would effectively thwart the power of the People to initiate laws and then vote on those same laws—a power expressly reserved to the people in the Michigan Constitution.” Also considered and addressed by the Court was the inability of the State to establish why the Legislature substantially amended 2018 PA 337 and 338 other than as a means to deprive the voters of their access to the initiative process.

The ruling is stayed until February 19, 2023, and pending the outcome of appeal, these changes may not go into effect. 

For further information, including further discussion of the actions taken by the legislative body in 2018, please see:

Michigan Supreme Court – In re House of Representatives Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2018 PA 368 – 18 Dec. 2019

Foster Swift – Michigan Court of Claims Declares “Adopt and Amend” Unconstitutional – 5 Aug. 2022

Art. 2 Sec. 9 – Michigan Constitution

1954 PA 116 – Michigan Election Law

Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel – 19 July 2022

By: Jessica Senzer

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Associate Member

UNITED STATES – On Friday, January 6, 2023, a six-year-old boy shot his teacher at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, Virginia. Police Chief Steve Drew said that the shooting was not an accidental one and that there was an altercation between the teacher and student that led to the shooting. Following the incident, Newport News Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. George Parker decided to keep the school closed on Monday, January 9, and he stated that “we need to educate our children and we need to keep them safe.” Superintendent Parker further expressed, I’m sounding like a broken record today because I continue to reiterate that… we need to keep the guns out of the hands of our young people.”

Dr. George Parker is not the only American to feel as if inadequate actions have been taken to address the rising concerns regarding gun control in America. Nabeela Syed, a newly elected member of the Illinois state legislature, grew up in Generation Z, a generation that “grew up on active shooter drills.” Syed recently stated that “sometimes it’s frustrating, being a younger person and feeling like we’ve been crying out for this and feeling unheard.” Despite Americans’ consistent pleas for action to be taken to stop the increase in gun violence across the country, the Supreme Court of the United States recently took the opposite actions.

On June 23, 2022, in the now-landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court found a New York state concealed carry law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Second and 14^th Amendments. The concealed carry law required a prospective gun owner to prove that “proper cause” existed before they could legally carry a concealed pistol or revolver in public. The Court held that this “proper cause” requirement prevented law-abiding citizens with self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

In the opinion, Justice Thomas references two major gun rights cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Both of these historic gun rights cases recognize the right to keep and bear arms inside the home for purposes of self-defense. The Bruen opinion, however, expanded the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, holding that an individual also has the right to carry a gun for self-defense outside of the home. Amidst concerning increases in gun violence nationwide and sweeping pleas for more gun control, the Supreme Court acted contrary to the cries of the American people, and the repercussions are palpable.

For further information, please see:

CNN – 6-year-old in custody after shooting teacher in Virginia, police chief says – Jan. 7, 2023

NYSBA – The Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision and Its Impact: What Comes Next? – Aug. 9, 2022

U.S. News – Growing Into Leadership After Growing Up With Shootings – Nov. 28, 2022