Mich. House bills aim to limit powers of governor
The Michigan House of Representatives voted shortly after midnight Friday to repeal a law Gov. Gretchen Whitmer used to issue sweeping safety regulations and business restrictions at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was one of two measures supported chiefly by House Republicans that aims to restrict what the governor and the state health department can do in a time of crisis. While both measures are likely headed to Whitmer’s desk, it is unlikely she will sign either.
The House voted 57-43 to repeal a 1945 emergency powers law, a portion of code that drew the ire of opponents to Whitmer’s executive orders but one the governor and her supporters argued helped save lives. It voted 59-44 on a separate bill that would limit the length of emergency orders from the state health department without legislative approval and prohibit pandemic restrictions on religious institutions.
The Senate already approved the repeal in April. In October, the Michigan Supreme
Court ruled 4-3 that this specific law unconstitutionally shifted powers from the Legislature to the executive branch. The court also ruled Whitmer’s executive orders were invalid because she initiated some under a separate law that required she receive legislative approval.
Since then, the Whitmer administration has enacted very similar restrictions using health department orders. These orders were issued under state health law and are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling.
The early morning vote garnered little debate in the House. Democratic floor leader Yousef Rabhi, D-Ann Arbor, said the governor needed to use the orders proactively to save lives, given legislative inaction.
“If we, as a state, were willing to just mask up like every other civilized nation on this planet, perhaps the death count would be lower and perhaps we wouldn’t have needed as many executive orders. But unfortunately that didn’t happen,” Rabhi said.
Speaking for the majority, Rep. Aaron Miller, R-Sturgis, said he supports practicing safety measures but this bill is a way to check executive overreach.
“I don’t care who the governor is. I think it’s improper levels of power,” Miller said.
“We ought to be more careful than legislatures have been in the past — and we’ve been guilty frankly, too — for handing over power that is not really about a pandemic and what effects might come from it. But it’s about the process.”
A separate measure that would curtail the length of an emergency order passed late Thursday with a modicum of Democratic support.
The bill would put a 28-day limit on the length of a pandemic order issued by the state health department. If the department sought to have an order extended beyond that point, it would need legislative approval.
While the Senate previously approved the bill, the House added a portion that would also prohibit the state from restricting in-person religious services. Religious institutions have been included in orders restricting gathering sizes, but in March the Whitmer administration clarified no place of worship would face a penalty for going over the capacity limit.
Religious institutions, and those partaking in services at those sites, are exempt from current mask and gathering restrictions.
While it was largely a party-line vote, three Democrats — Reps. Sara Cambensy of Marquette, Kevin Coleman of Westland and Angela Witwer of Delta Township — supported the measure. One Republican, Rep. Larry Inman of Williamsburg, voted against the bill.
If Whitmer chooses to veto either bill, Republicans in the House and Senate lack enough votes to override her decision.
Neither chamber voted on any measure that would provide new economic aid to struggling small businesses or workers laid off because of the pandemic. The Senate did announce Thursday night it had a framework for a proposal; the news release did not include specific dollar amounts, but stated the plan would help both workers and businesses.
The press release attacked Whitmer for her executive orders, an indication she likely does not support the proposal in its current form. It was not clear whether House Republican leadership supported the Senate proposal.