House Bill 5785, Expand permissible criminal court cost levies: Passed 95 to 14 in the House

To expand the costs that can be imposed on an individual convicted in a criminal case. The bill would authorize imposing assessments covering a share of court employee salaries and benefits, of "goods and services” used in operating the court, and of court building “operation and maintenance" costs. In addition, it would establish that a court has no duty to provide a “calculation of the costs involved in a particular case.” The bill reverses a state Supreme Court case that limited charges to those specifically allowed in a particular statute; its provisions would expire in 27 months, presumably to allow the legislature to rationalize these impositions for all courts across the state.

Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

House Bill 5233, Expand scope of criminal property seizure law: Passed 93 to 13 in the House

To expand the reach of the state's criminal forfeiture law by making the property of an owner deemed "willfully blind" to illegal activity taking place on the premises subject to forfeiture. The bill would also allow the seizure of real or personal property that had been transferred to a new owner after the crime in some cases, let the government wait up to 28 days before giving notice that property is being seized (under current law this is seven days), and authorize forfeiture for home invasion, rape and other serious sex crimes. The state criminal forfeiture law allows the government to seize property used in a crime or acquired with the proceeds of a crime, with the net proceeds from its sale turned over to the agencies that are “substantially involved in effecting the forfeiture."

Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

House Bill 5391, Cap wage garnishment amounts: Passed 102 to 7 in the House

To revise the law that authorizes a court-ordered garnishment of an individual’s wages to satisfy an obligation. The bill would cap the amount of a garnishment at 15 percent of the "gross wages" earned by the employee, but not if this would reduce the pay to less than the "minimum wage" mandated by the state or federal government.

Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

Senate Bill 616, Revise Medicaid funding sources: Passed 78 to 31 in the House

To shift Medicaid fund sources to reflect the transition from a 1 percent "health insurance claims tax" to the imposition of the 6 percent "use tax" on Medicaid managed care health care providers (hospitals). These levies are designed to “game” the federal Medicaid program in ways that result in higher federal payments to Michigan’s medical welfare establishment (including those same hospitals).

Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

House Bill 5649, Recognize terminal patients’ “right to try” unapproved treatments: Passed 109 to 0 in the House

To prohibit state officials and licensing boards from sanctioning health care providers who participate in providing non-FDA approved experimental drugs and treatments to terminal patients in accordance with the conditions specified in the “right to try” law proposed by Senate Bill 991. (SB 991 was passed by the Senate in August but has yet been voted on in the House.)

Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

House Bill 5606, Expand "protectionist" auto dealer provision: Passed 106 to 3 in the House

To prohibit vehicle makers from preventing a dealer from tacking on extra fees that are permitted by a law that empowers the state to enforce exclusive new car dealer “territories” and regulate the terms of commercial relationships between dealers and manufacturers.

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.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.