Michigan Supreme Court Rejects GOP Legislature's 'Adopt-and-Amend' Tactic, Defends Voter Rights

Photo byThumbwind Publications

Lansing, Michigan - In a landmark decision upholding the power of direct democracy, the Michigan Supreme Court has struck down the state legislature’s controversial 'adopt-and-amend' tactic used in 2018 to block citizen-initiated ballot measures. The ruling in the case Mothering Justice et al v Nessel and State of Michigan is a significant victory for Michigan voters and a reaffirmation of their right to shape state laws through initiatives.

Attorney General Nessel's Statement

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel applauded the Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of preserving the integrity of the voter initiative process. “This is a landmark victory for Michigan voters and a resounding affirmation of the power of direct democracy,” said Nessel. “The Legislature cannot manipulate its power to undermine the will of the people. This ruling sends a clear message that elected officials cannot disregard the voices of their constituents. I am glad to see the Court recognize and respect that the people reserved for themselves the power of initiative, a crucial tool meant to shape the laws that govern them.”

Background on the 'Adopt-and-Amend' Tactic

The dispute centers on two citizen-initiated petitions from 2018 aimed at increasing the minimum wage and mandating paid sick leave for Michigan workers. These measures garnered significant public support and were set to appear on the ballot. However, the Michigan Legislature adopted the measures to remove them from the ballot and then swiftly amended them within the same legislative session, effectively nullifying the original proposals through Public Acts 368 and 369. This maneuver allowed the legislature to alter the initiatives with a simple majority, circumventing the intended ballot process and public vote.

The Court's Ruling

The Michigan Supreme Court's ruling firmly rejects the legislature’s tactic, declaring that such actions undermine the democratic process and the power vested in voters to initiate and enact laws. The Court's opinion underscores that the legislature cannot adopt a measure solely to prevent a public vote and then amend it to change its intent.

Implications for Michigan's Direct Democracy

This ruling has profound implications for the future of citizen-led initiatives in Michigan. By striking down the 'adopt-and-amend' tactic, the Court has protected the sanctity of the ballot initiative process, ensuring that the voices of Michigan voters cannot be easily overridden by legislative actions.

Attorney General Nessel, named as a defendant in the lawsuit due to an opinion by her predecessor that upheld the legality of the 'adopt-and-amend' tactic, has consistently supported the challenge against this legislative maneuver. Her victory in this case reaffirms her commitment to defending voter rights and the principles of direct democracy.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision is a pivotal moment for voter rights and the democratic process in the state. By rejecting the legislature’s 'adopt-and-amend' tactic, the Court has reinforced the power of Michigan’s voters to directly influence and enact laws. This ruling stands as a testament to the enduring strength of democratic principles and the importance of preserving the integrity of the voter initiative process.