Font size:
By Jack McHugh
House Bill 5641, Authorize PPOs to let protected individual keep phone number: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate
To allow an individual under a personal protection order to get control of a cell phone number from the person against whom the protection order is required. Courts would be authorized to order the phone company to make it so.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
Senate Bill 289, Authorize sanctions for bad faith patent infringement claim: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate
To authorize damage awards for the target of a patent infringement claim that is made in bad faith. Actual damages plus exemplary damages of triple the actual loss would be authorized, plus costs. If the target demonstrates a “reasonable likelihood” that the claim is made in bad faith then the court could order the claim seeker to post a bond equal to the target’s likely legal expenses.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
House Bill 5442, Authorize Amber Alert type system for “active shooter”: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate
To require the State Police to establish procedures for rapidly disseminating useful information to radio and television stations, and text messages to cell phones, regarding a "clear, present, persistent, ongoing, and random threat to public safety."
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
Senate Bill 291, Authorize wrongful imprisonment compensation: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate
To authorize payment by the state of civil damages to a person wrongfully imprisoned for a crime he or she did not commit. The damages would be $50,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment, plus reasonable attorney fees.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
House Bill 5484, Authorize wearing “hunter pink” for safety in field: Passed 78 to 30 in the House
To revise the law that requires hunters in the field to wear some high-visibility “hunters orange” apparel for safety purposes. The bill would also permit “hunters pink” as an alternative, and possibly other colors, but only if the state Natural Resources Commission determined a color is effective at enhancing safety.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
House Bill 5215, Criminalize removing collar from someone else's hunting dog: Passed 79 to 29 in the House
To make it a crime to remove the collar from a dog owned by someone else that is being used for hunting, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $2,500 fine.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
House Bill 5457, Repeal auto insurance company tax credit: Passed 78 to 30 in the House
To repeal a controversial tax credit that auto insurance companies can collect based on required costs they incur for uninsured injuries and high risk drivers. Reportedly the companies are collecting $80 million annually for the credit, which they claim would be tacked on to insurance bills if it is repealed.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
House Bill 5613, Limit state department rulemaking authority: Passed 61 to 47 in the House
To prohibit a state department from promulgating rules more stringent than required by federal standards, unless specifically required by state statute unless specifically required by state statute or the department director determines there is a "clear and convincing need" to do so.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
Senate Bill 207, Authorize roadside driving while drugged saliva test: Passed 69 to 39 in the House
To authorize police with specialized training to require a driver suspected of driving drugged to take a saliva test, make a warrantless arrest if the test is positive, make it a civil infraction to refuse a saliva test, and order a commercial driver out of service for testing positive or refusing to take the test.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
House Bill 5619, Require schools to consider “restorative justice” discipline measures: Passed 108 to 0 in the House
To require school officials to consider using “restorative justice” measures in certain disciplinary situations, including victim-offender conferences initiated by the victim and subject to various restrictions and procedural requirements. This is part of a package that scales back a "zero tolerance" regime mandating expulsion for certain behaviors.
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”
Senate Bill 673, Extend tax breaks for local developers program: Passed 94 to 14 in the House
To extend through 2026 the authority of local governments to grant "Obsolete Property Rehabilitation" property tax breaks to particular developers they select. Under current law this expires at the end of 2016.
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.
