STATE OF MICHIGAN
Journal of the Senate
102nd Legislature
REGULAR SESSION OF 2024
Senate Chamber, Lansing, Wednesday, October 16, 2024.
10:00 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Jeremy Moss.
The roll was called by the Secretary of the Senate, who announced that a quorum was present.
Albert—present Hauck—present Moss—present
Anthony—present Hertel—present Nesbitt—present
Bayer—present Hoitenga—present Outman—present
Bellino—present Huizenga—present Polehanki—present
Brinks—present Irwin—present Runestad—present
Bumstead—present Johnson—present Santana—present
Camilleri—present Klinefelt—present Shink—present
Cavanagh—present Lauwers—present Singh—present
Chang—present Lindsey—present Theis—present
Cherry—present McBroom—present Victory—present
Daley—present McCann—present Webber—present
Damoose—present McDonald Rivet—present Wojno—present
Geiss—present McMorrow—present
Senator Dan Lauwers of the 25th District offered the following invocation:
God our Father, forgive us for our selfishness. Help us to be more selfless and willing to help one another. Help us to be mindful; our time on earth is short, and our time in this chamber is even shorter. May we use the time You grant us to make our homes, our communities, and this state a better place.
In Your name we pray. Amen.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, led the members of the Senate in recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Motions and Communications
The motion prevailed.
The motion prevailed.
Senators McBroom and Nesbitt entered the Senate Chamber.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Introduction and Referral of Bills
Senate Bill No. 1035, entitled
A bill to amend 2023 PA 154, entitled “Clean drinking water access act,” by amending sections 5 and 7 (MCL 380.1905 and 380.1907).
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Energy and Environment.
Senator Hoitenga introduced
Senate Bill No. 1036, entitled
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 3i and 3j (MCL 722.113i and 722.113j), section 3i as added by 2023 PA 173 and section 3j as added by 2023 PA 155.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Energy and Environment.
Senator Anthony entered the Senate Chamber.
Senators Cavanagh, Bayer, Moss, Geiss, Polehanki, McBroom, Chang, Victory, Klinefelt and McMorrow introduced
Senate Bill No. 1037, entitled
A bill to prescribe the rights and duties of parties to telephone solicitation sales; to regulate certain telephone solicitations; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state governmental officers and entities; to prohibit certain conduct; and to prescribe civil sanctions, penalties, and remedies.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection.
Senators Cavanagh, Bayer, Moss, Geiss, Polehanki, Chang, McBroom, Victory, Anthony, Klinefelt and McMorrow introduced
Senate Bill No. 1038, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending section 2529 (MCL 600.2529), as amended by 2023 PA 35.
The
bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on
Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection.
Senators Geiss and Johnson entered the Senate Chamber.
Senators Moss, Cavanagh, Geiss, Polehanki, McBroom, Chang, Bayer, Victory, Anthony, Klinefelt and McMorrow introduced
Senate Bill No. 1039, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 331, entitled “Michigan consumer protection act,” by amending section 3 (MCL 445.903), as amended by 2022 PA 152.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection.
Senators Brinks and Camilleri entered the Senate Chamber.
Senators Anthony, Cavanagh, Moss, Geiss, Polehanki, Chang, Bayer, McBroom, Victory, Klinefelt and McMorrow introduced
Senate Bill No. 1040, entitled
A bill to amend 1971 PA 227, entitled “An act to prescribe the rights and duties of parties to home solicitation sales; to regulate certain telephone solicitation; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state officers and entities; and to prescribe penalties and remedies,” by amending the title and sections 1 and 3 (MCL 445.111 and 445.113), the title as amended by 2002 PA 612, section 1 as amended by 2009 PA 93, and section 3 as amended by 2006 PA 138; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection.
Senators Cavanagh, Bayer, Moss, Geiss, Polehanki, Chang, McBroom, Victory, Anthony, Klinefelt and McMorrow introduced
Senate Bill No. 1041, entitled
A bill to repeal 1913 PA 206, entitled “An act to declare telephone lines and telephone companies within this state to be common carriers; to regulate the telephone business; to confer certain powers, duties, and responsibilities on the public service commission; to provide for the consolidation of telephone lines and telephone companies; to prohibit certain uses of telephone lines and telephone equipment; to regulate persons using telephone lines and telephone equipment; to prescribe a penalty for the violation of this act; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts on specific dates,” (MCL 484.125).
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection.
Senators Anthony, Geiss, Polehanki, Chang, Klinefelt and Cavanagh introduced
Senate Bill No. 1042, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 13501, 13521, 13522, and 13523 (MCL 333.13501, 333.13521, 333.13522, and 333.13523), sections 13501 and 13523 as amended by 1994 PA 100, section 13521 as amended by 2018 PA 544, and section 13522 as amended by 2023 PA 138; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Health Policy.
Senator Singh introduced
Senate Bill No. 1043, entitled
A bill to amend 2018 PA 57, entitled “Recodified tax increment financing act,” by amending section 301 (MCL 125.4301).
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The
motion prevailed, the time being 10:05 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Moss.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
General Orders
The motion prevailed, and the President pro tempore, Senator Moss, designated Senator Bayer as Chairperson.
After some time spent therein, the Committee arose; and the President pro tempore, Senator Moss, having resumed the Chair, the Committee reported back to the Senate, favorably and without amendment, the following bills:
House Bill No. 5557, entitled
A bill to amend 2008 PA 33, entitled “Michigan planning enabling act,” by amending sections 7, 15, and 33 (MCL 125.3807, 125.3815, and 125.3833), section 7 as amended by 2010 PA 134, section 15 as amended by 2010 PA 105, and section 33 as amended by 2010 PA 306.
A bill to amend 1883 PA 98, entitled “An act to punish persons who procure or place upon record spurious or fraudulent conveyances of real estate, with intent to deceive,” by amending the title and section 1 (MCL 565.371).
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 15b of chapter XVII (MCL 777.15b), as amended by 2014 PA 451.
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 159g (MCL 750.159g), as amended by 2022 PA 174.
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 174a (MCL 750.174a), as amended by 2013 PA 34.
A bill to provide for the creation of a vulnerable adult multidisciplinary team; to prescribe the powers and duties of a vulnerable adult multidisciplinary team; and to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities.
The bills were placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.
Senate Bill No. 807, entitled
A bill to amend 2018 IL 1, entitled “Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act,” by amending the title and sections 4, 5, 10, and 11 (MCL 333.27954, 333.27955, 333.27960, and 333.27961), section 10 as amended by 2023 PA 166.
Substitute (S-1).
Senate Bill No. 896, entitled
A bill to amend 1909 PA 279, entitled “The home rule city act,” (MCL 117.1 to 117.38) by adding section 5l.
Substitute (S-1).
Senate Bill No. 922, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” (MCL 600.101 to 600.9947) by adding section 2950p.
Substitute (S-1).
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Motions and Communications
Senate Bill No. 922
Senate Bill No. 923
Senate Bill No. 924
Senate Bill No. 925
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time being 11:14 a.m.
11:35 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Moss.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 922
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 922, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” (MCL 600.101 to 600.9947) by adding section 2950p.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Theis offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 1, line 1, after “who” by striking out “is 60 years of age or older,”.
2. Amend page 2, line 10, by striking out all of subdivision (d) and relettering the remaining subdivisions.
3. Amend
page 5, line 11, by striking out all of subdivision (d) and relettering
the remaining subdivisions.
4. Amend page 7, line 18, by striking out all of subsection (10) and renumbering the remaining subsections.
5. Amend page 10, line 24, after “subsection” by striking out “(16)” and inserting “(15)”.
6. Amend page 11, line 6, after “filed.” by striking out the balance of the subsection.
7. Amend page 11, line 28, by striking out all of subdivision (e) and relettering the remaining subdivision.
8. Amend page 12, line 10, after “subsection” by striking out “(14)” and inserting “(13)”.
9. Amend page 12, line 14, after “subsection” by striking out “(19) or (20)” and inserting “(18) or (19)”.
10. Amend page 13, line 9, after “subsection” by striking out “(25) or (26)” and inserting “(24) or (25)”.
11. Amend page 13, line 14, after “subsection” by striking out “(19) or (20)” and inserting “(18) or (19)”.
12. Amend page 13, line 20, after “subsection” by striking out “(23)” and inserting “(22)”.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 373 Yeas—25
Anthony Cherry Klinefelt Santana
Bayer Damoose McCann Shink
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Singh
Bumstead Hertel McMorrow Victory
Camilleri Huizenga Moss Webber
Cavanagh Irwin Polehanki Wojno
Chang
Nays—13
Albert Hoitenga Lindsey Outman
Bellino Johnson McBroom Runestad
Daley Lauwers Nesbitt Theis
Hauck
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protest
Senator Theis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 922 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:
I previously spoke to my issues with this—and again, I commend the bill sponsors. I’m specifically speaking to Senate Bill No. 922 but the entire package is wonderful in concept. Absolutely, vulnerable individuals need heightened protections. I agree with that but this is way too expansive and as someone who’s looking at the age of 60 in the not-too-distant future, and looking around on our floor, a significant number of us have already reached that milestone, and it doesn’t, by virtue of having made it to 60, should not offer for you enhanced protections. It doesn’t create an additional vulnerability because you had a 60th birthday. The government has no additional responsibility to babysit you because you hit the age of 60. It does have a responsibility to take care of folks who are vulnerable and I think the idea behind this bill—specifically Senate Bill No. 922—is a good idea but I think it needs significant adjustment before it should be passed. I will be voting “no” and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:
First I’d like to start by commending the bill sponsor for working to protect the vulnerable and agree with the concept, absolutely. Where I disagree with is how expansively this bill is written. I don’t believe that individuals who turn 60 suddenly deserve a heightened level of governmental protection over someone who’s 59-1/2 for no apparent reason, but this bill creates that scenario. As written, the bill contains significant Fourteenth Amendment due process violations because someone could have their firearm removed without even a police report being filed over a perceived threat.
My amendment removes the arbitrary age of 60 from throughout the bill while leaving needed protections for vulnerable and disabled individuals. The amendment also removes a reference to firearms to rectify those Fourteenth Amendment concerns. I will point out that under legislation passed this session, the ability to remove firearms from a home that is a perceived threat already exists outside of this bill.
Senator Klinefelt’s statement is as follows:
I’d like to thank my colleagues, Senators Anthony, Hertel, and Irwin for their work on this important legislation. Senator Anthony has been working on this issue for a number of years now, and I am especially grateful for her help. Senate Bill No. 922 gives the court the ability to issue a PPO if there’s reasonable cause that protection is needed for a vulnerable adult from harmful actions, including financial exploitation. Senate Bill No. 923 adds embezzlement from a vulnerable adult as a racketeering offense which allows prosecutors to reclaim more of the victim’s stolen money or property. Senator Hertel’s bill is if the embezzlement or the criminal act persists after the vulnerable adult’s death, that it would enable recovery of the total stolen amounts that occurred during the victim’s lifetime as well as from the estate. Senator Irwin’s bill will allow each county or region to create a vulnerable adult multidisciplinary team to establish protections that would enable collaboration on cases and track outcomes without compromising sensitive information.
I request that my colleagues support me. Thank you.
Senator Lindsey’s statement is as follows:
As we’re discussing these bills in front of us that have to do with protecting the elderly, I simply just want to take an opportunity to make an observation about them. Senate Bill No. 922 in particular talks about, in certain parts, financial exploitation of the elderly and especially doing that through deceptive practices. I simply wanted to observe that I think the No. 1 threat to elderly people being financially exploited is the government and politicians involved in it. I hope that if this passes, some clever elderly people will find a way to use it against people who are campaigning for their votes and lying to them and exploiting them financially through that way.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
The intent here is very good. I put in a bill a couple sessions ago to try to prevent financial exploitation of seniors. However, I do, in closer review of the bill, find some areas that I think are troublesome such as if you have this personal protection order under the section of the court that there’s a reasonable cause to believe that an individual restrained has committed one or more of the following acts: possessing or purchasing a firearm. That’s a pretty tall order and you want to make sure you get it right in terms of what an individual has done in order to have such a sanction. One of the provisions, under (i) on page 6, is “a pattern of derogatory or inappropriate names”—is that like the wrong pronoun? I certainly think that could be. Using profanity, ridicule, harassment, cursing, it just seems like it’s very open-ended in terms of what can happen to you.
It also is valid for a minimum of 182
days. I have seen so many of these cases where the judge will say a month, let’s
see how it works. For some reason we write it for a minimum of 182 days? By the
way, they can issue this ex parte meaning the individual and the attorney have
no idea there’s even a court proceeding.
You’re talking about a real series of sanctions
that could be issued against a person because they used inappropriate names or a
derogatory phrase or swore and that’s enough under the bill to really lose a
lot of your rights?
Unfortunately, this could have been one of these situations where all on both sides of this chamber, in unison, that it’s a great bill. If those provisions could have been modified, I could support it. I can’t support it as it’s currently written.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 923, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 159g (MCL 750.159g), as amended by 2022 PA 174.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 374 Yeas—38
Albert Daley Lauwers Polehanki
Anthony Damoose Lindsey Runestad
Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana
Bellino Hauck McCann Shink
Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McMorrow Theis
Camilleri Huizenga Moss Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Nesbitt Webber
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 924, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 174a (MCL 750.174a), as amended by 2013 PA 34.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 375 Yeas—38
Albert Daley Lauwers Polehanki
Anthony Damoose Lindsey Runestad
Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana
Bellino Hauck McCann Shink
Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McMorrow Theis
Camilleri Huizenga Moss Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Nesbitt Webber
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 925, entitled
A bill to provide for the creation of a vulnerable adult multidisciplinary team; to prescribe the powers and duties of a vulnerable adult multidisciplinary team; and to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 376 Yeas—38
Albert Daley Lauwers Polehanki
Anthony Damoose Lindsey Runestad
Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana
Bellino Hauck McCann Shink
Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McMorrow Theis
Camilleri Huizenga Moss Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Nesbitt Webber
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the
bill.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Statements
The motion prevailed.
Senator Webber’s statement is as follows:
Yesterday, it was reported that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has agreed to pay a $13 million settlement to a dozen patients and employees traumatized during an ill-advised and poorly-executed active shooter drill that took place at the former Hawthorn Center in December 2022. As one parent previously put it, this settlement is a “lot of money for the state to throw out at this issue…” I agree. Our state resources are better spent helping our residents who need the department’s services, not on legal fees and court settlements.
While I hope the patients and families affected by this situation can find some solace of relief through this settlement, there is a disturbing pattern of the Governor’s administration failing to take seriously the horrific incidents patients are facing within our state’s crumbling mental health system. I am extremely disappointed that the state does not have to admit to any wrongdoing as part of this settlement agreement and that the employee who actually ran the drill is still employed by the state. Where is the accountability from this department and from this Governor?
We must ensure that these patients and their parents receive true accountability for this terrible situation. As of today, we have seen no action by the majority to hold the Department of Health and Human Services accountable. I look forward to the independent Auditor General report on how the department handles recipient rights allegations within our state hospital system.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
Yesterday, I sent a letter to Chief Justice Clement of the Michigan Supreme Court, urging her to review the conduct of one of her fellow justices. It is troubling and, frankly, astonishing that this oversight responsibility has defaulted to me rather than being addressed within the court itself. The issue involves Justice Kyra Bolden, who accepted a campaign contribution of $82,500 from a political action committee controlled by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson—at the very time that Benson was a defendant in the case before the Michigan Supreme Court.
Here is the reprehensible timeline: In November 2023, Secretary Benson filed an appeal in O’Halloran v. Benson, where she was the defendant. On August 26, 2024, Benson then contributed from her PAC over $80,000, near the maximum allowed, to Justice Bolden’s reelection campaign for November. In August, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled by a slim 4-3 margin in favor of Benson, overturning previous unanimous decisions from both the Court of Claims and the Court of Appeals. Justice Bolden was not only participating in the ruling but she also went so far as to author the majority opinion, siding entirely with Benson.
This sequence raises concerns about the ethics and impartiality, questions that every citizen here in the state of Michigan along with the chief justice must simply address. Canon 2 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct is clear, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Accepting campaign funds from a PAC tied to a litigant and then refusing to recuse from the case undermines the spirit and the appearance of judicial impartiality. Justice Bolden should have recused herself due to the obvious conflict of interest.
I strongly urge the courts and any relevant oversight bodies to investigate this matter thoroughly. Michigan, as we already know, is the least-transparent state in the nation and public’s trust in our governmental institutions are rightfully nosediving. The people here in the state of Michigan deserve and expect a judiciary that is fair, impartial, and beyond reproach. It is time to restore that confidence in our courts.
The other component of this squalid affair is Secretary Benson’s broken pledge to the citizens of Michigan. During her first campaign, Secretary Benson promised to operate in a nonpartisan manner stating, Our Secretary of State must operate in an office in a neutral and nonpartisan way, that means you won’t find me co-chairing campaigns or endorsing candidates in elections where I serve as the final certifier of the results. Sounds beautiful, it’s what we all want. But then, Benson violated this pledge in 2023 by endorsing Adam Hollier in his unsuccessful campaign against Congressman Shri Thanedar. This public endorsement contradicts the promise of neutrality and further undermines the trust of the citizens of Michigan.
Since Benson’s PAC was formed in 2023, it
has not donated a single dollar to Republicans, exposing the partisan nature of
her actions. Her broken promise of nonpartisanship is yet another example of
the growing corrosion of trust in Michigan’s governmental institutions. The
people here in the state of Michigan have endured these ethical breaches far
too long. It is time to stop the talking and start the doing. Michigan’s
citizens have suffered the lack of ethics, transparency, and accountability
across all levels of government long enough. We need to get to the bottom of
this.
Announcements of Printing and Enrollment
House Bill Nos. 6020 6021 6022 6023 6024 6025
Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety – Thursday, October 17, 12:00 noon, Room 1200, Binsfeld Office Building (517) 373-5312
Housing and Human Services – Thursday, October 17, 2:00 p.m., Room 403, 4th Floor, Capitol Building (517) 373-5323
Senator Singh moved that the Senate adjourn.
The motion prevailed, the time being 11:57 a.m.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, declared the Senate adjourned until Thursday, October 17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
DANIEL OBERLIN
Secretary of the Senate