Font size:
By Jack McHugh
While the Legislature is on a summer break the Roll Call Report is reviewing key votes of the 2013-2014 session.
Senate Bill 542, Permit more generous government employee health benefits: Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on October 8, 2013.
To increase from $11,000 to $12,250 the “hard cap” on the amount that a local government or school district can spend for an "individual-plus-spouse" employee health care policy under a 2011 law limiting the cost of such benefits.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 272, Authorize corporate and developer “port facility” subsidies: Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate on June 13, 2013
To expand the mission of the Michigan Strategic Fund to include providing undefined subsidies for corporations, developers and other entities involved in port facilities. The House has not taken up the proposal, which was introduced by Sen. Mike Kowall in this and the previous Legislature.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 114, Revise commercial rental assessment occupancy formula: Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate on June 13, 2013.
To eliminate the use of occupancy rates in determining the taxable value of commercial rental property. This essentially reverses a 2002 Supreme Court ruling, that the 1994 Proposal A property tax assessment limitations restricted increases for higher occupancy but not decreases for lower occupancy.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 283, Repeal annual union PAC contribution “re-up” requirement: Passed 36 to 1 in the Senate on May 22, 2013.
To repeal a requirement that union members or employees of a corporation who wish to have contributions to a union or corporate PAC automatically deducted from their paycheck must affirmatively give consent on an annual basis by means of signing a permission form. The bill would repeal the annual “re-up” requirement. The House has not taken up this measure.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 397, Expand a corporate/developer subsidy regime: Passed 33 to 4 in the Senate on September 26, 2013.
To authorize creation of a sixth “Next Michigan Development Corporation,” which is a government agency that gives tax breaks and subsidies to particular corporations or developers selected by political appointees on the entity's board for projects meeting extremely broad "multi-modal commerce" criteria (basically, any form of goods-related commerce). The new entity would be in the Upper Peninsula.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 307, Let 278 cities impose additional public safety property tax: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on October 16, 2013
To allow cities with less than 70,000 residents impose "special assessment" property taxes to pay for police and fire services. These taxes would be imposed over and above regular property taxes, and require voter approval. According to the Senate Fiscal Agency, this could allow 278 cities to impose these additional taxes. The House has not taken up this proposal.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 652, Make state Appeals Court venue for suits against the state: Passed 26 to 11 in the Senate on October 30, 2013.
To establish that the venue for all legal claims against state agencies, commissions, boards, etc. (the state “court of claims”), will no longer be the Ingham County circuit court, and instead will be the state Court of Appeals (which consists of 24 judges elected in four regional elections).
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 636, Facilitate "land line" transition to cell phones: Passed 32 to 3 in the Senate on December 5, 2013
To streamline regulations on “landline” telephone service providers so as to facilitate transitioning customers to a wireless (cell phone or VOIP) system, and allow phone companies to discontinue landline service after 2016. The bill authorizes appeal procedures for individual customers for whom the replacement service does not work well.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 509, Authorize new state Senate office building: Passed 22 to 14 in the Senate on December 4, 2013
To authorize the sale of the Farnum Senate office building in Lansing and construction of a new building for Senators’ offices. The House has not taken up this bill, but Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville recently revealed that the Secretary of the Senate has issued a Request for Proposals from developers and contractors.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 542, Permit more generous government employee health benefits: Passed 108 to 1 in the House on December 11, 2013
The House vote on the bill described above. This was signed into law This was signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on December 22, 2013.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 114, Revise commercial rental assessment occupancy formula: Passed 98 to 12 in the House on May 27, 2014
The House vote on the bill described above. This was signed into law on June 12, 2014.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 397, Expand a corporate/developer subsidy regime: Passed 87 to 22 in the House on December 11, 2013
The House vote on the bill described above. This was signed into law on December 21, 2013.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 652, Make state Appeals Court venue for suits against the state: Passed 57 to 52 in the House on November 6, 2013
The House vote on the bill described above. This was signed into law on November 12, 2013.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 636, Facilitate "land line" transition to cell phones: Passed 71 to 39 in the House on March 11, 2014
The House vote on the bill describe above. This was signed into law on March 25, 2014.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
SOURCE: MichiganVotes.org, a free, non-partisan website created by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, providing concise, non-partisan, plain-English descriptions of every bill and vote in the Michigan House and Senate. Please visit https://www.michiganvotes.org.
Get insightful commentary and the most reliable research on Michigan issues sent straight to your inbox.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government. Through our research and education programs, we challenge government overreach and advocate for a free-market approach to public policy that frees people to realize their potential and dreams.
Please consider contributing to our work to advance a freer and more prosperous state.
