Senate Bill No. 486, entitled

A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural resources and environmental protection act,” by amending section 43540e (MCL 324.43540e), as added by 2012 PA 520.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 260 Yeas—19

Bizon LaSata Outman Theis

Bumstead Lauwers Runestad VanderWall

Daley MacDonald Schmidt Victory

Horn McBroom Shirkey Zorn

Johnson Nesbitt Stamas

Nays—16

Alexander Bullock Hollier Moss

Ananich Chang Irwin Polehanki

Bayer Geiss McCann Santana

Brinks Hertel McMorrow Wojno

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Protest

Senator Polehanki, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 486 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Polehanki’s statement is as follows:

This bill would restrict the membership of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wolf Management Advisory Council to only residents of the Upper Peninsula. So if this bill takes effect, gone is the current conservation organization representative, gone is the current hunting or fishing representative, gone is the current tribal government representative, and gone is the current animal advocacy organization representative—who happens to be my constituent, attorney Bee Friedlander. They’d be all gone if this bill passes, not because they lack expertise or have underperformed in their roles, but simply because they live in the wrong part of Michigan.

Make no mistake. Those in support of this bill have one goal in mind which is to stack the Wolf Management Advisory Council with those in favor of a wolf hunt ahead of the 2022 hunting season. This is despite the members of the 2015 wolf management roundtable finding that there was, “No agreement on whether a regulated wolf hunting and trapping season should be provided in the absence of any need to reduce wolf-related conflicts.” I’m going to repeat, “In the absence of any need to reduce wolf-related conflicts.”

Moreover, Mr. President, all Michiganders—Michiganders, all Michiganders—vehemently rejected wolf hunting in two statewide ballot measures in 2014. This bill will effectively silence the voices of the majority of Michiganders who have made clear that they’re opposed to a wolf hunting and trapping season anywhere in the state.

Mr. President, it’s called the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, not the Upper Peninsula Department of Natural Resources, so I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on this exclusionary bill.

Senator McBroom asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:

I guess I really like the sound of an Upper Peninsula Department of Natural Resources. Maybe I should get a bill to do that—stay tuned.

I want to just try to help members understand—this panel is simply an advisory panel. The panel has no authority, it does not get to make decisions or policy, it simply makes recommendations to the Natural Resources Commission and the department. The Natural Resources Commission is tasked with the management of game species in this state and is a panel made up of a majority of people from below the bridge. Interestingly enough, the law does actually mandate, though, that there be somebody from the Upper Peninsula on that panel because if it were purely just done by population, there probably wouldn’t be anybody from the Upper Peninsula. You can look at the Agriculture and Rural Development Commission, same thing; look at the Certificate of Need Commission, which demands representation from around the state, not from just one area of high population.

This panel that this bill impacts is purely advisory and believe me, we have plenty of people opposed to wolf hunting in the Upper Peninsula to populate the seats on the panel. It’s not going to be a problem, we have people who support hunting, we have people who oppose it, we have almost 300,000 people, I guarantee you we can efficiently populate the panel. We have a very large and active section of tribal nations in the Upper Peninsula who can take a seat on this panel. I’m simply saying in this bill, Why should that panel currently have all of its membership but one from the Lower Peninsula where they don’t have the wolves? How would Belle Isle feel if the board that oversees that was all people from the Upper Peninsula? How would the people who care about elk—which aren’t in the U.P.—feel if their management was done by all people in the Upper Peninsula? How would the Pigeon River Country Advisory Council feel if we put all people from the Upper Peninsula on their panel? This is how the people of the Upper Peninsula currently feel about the wolf advisory panel. Right now, only one person is from the U.P., as if we had a shortage of tribal representation in the U.P., as if we had a shortage of animal rights folks in the U.P., as if we had a shortage of conservationists or pro-hunting people in the U.P. We don’t have a shortage of them. Why couldn’t we have those selected?

To the good Senator from the 7th District’s fear about the current membership being changed, this panel’s job is supposed to be ending in just a few months. This bill isn’t going to be passed for several months yet; it’s got a long way to go, so it’s not going to impact the currently-selected panel, and if people were really worried about that, why didn’t somebody come to me with an amendment to say, Hey, let’s not make it change the current panel, let’s make it effective for future panels. Why didn’t somebody come with an amendment that says, You know, maybe out of the five, you guys should have three or four, but we still want—fine, but nobody’s even come up with an amendment. Nobody’s even come and suggested some sort of compromise. It’s just a lot of Sturm und Drang about how this is just going to somehow disenfranchise the people or create bad wildlife policy. What kind of patronizing thoughts are you having about people from the U.P.? That we’re incapable of providing some decent advice on this issue, that our animal rights representative or tribal representative are so in the tank for one side that they’ll falsely represent themselves on the panel? Come on. That’s not how it’s going to be.

Members, I implore you, help out my district with this so we can participate in a more robust way on this issue that only impacts the residents I represent.

Senate Bill No. 507, entitled

A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 1a, 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 306a, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k (MCL 257.1a, 257.216, 257.226, 257.255, 257.301, 257.306, 257.306a, 257.309, 257.312f, 257.312k, 257.314, and 257.801k), sections 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k as amended by 2020 PA 304 and section 306a as amended by 2020 PA 376, and by adding section 205a.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 261 Yeas—25

Alexander LaSata Nesbitt Stamas

Bizon Lauwers Outman Theis

Bumstead MacDonald Polehanki VanderWall

Daley McBroom Runestad Victory

Horn McCann Schmidt Wojno

Irwin McMorrow Shirkey Zorn

Johnson

Nays—10

Ananich Bullock Hertel Moss

Bayer Chang Hollier Santana

Brinks Geiss

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Irwin asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Irwin’s statement is as follows:

I rise to offer some words on this bill. I intend to vote in favor of the bill, but I’m a little confused by some of the dilatory language in this legislation. It strikes me that given the recent announcement by the Secretary of State regarding greeters who are going to be in all offices and are going to be there to assist clients who walk in, the effect of this legislation is going to be zero with respect to that element. In terms of requiring the Secretary of State to not charge late fees for people who are submitting their paperwork late because of everything we’ve gone through over the course of the last year, I think that’s great and I’m going to support the bill for that reason, but all of this business about the 25 hours of in-person, I believe, is completely dilatory and will have no effect, certainly the way it’s written.

I would also point out that requiring these hours does fly in the face of the budget that the Senate just passed. The Senate recently passed a budget for the Secretary of State that reduces their branch operation funding by 6 percent, and in an environment where labor costs are going up, healthcare costs are going up, all costs are going up, while we reduce the Secretary of State’s ability to serve the citizens by 6 percent and now we’re trying to, you know, provide words that urge them to provide better service. If we’re going to throw words at the Secretary of State urging better service, we should also probably provide the resources that make that possible.

Senate Bill No. 508, entitled

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 262 Yeas—25

Alexander LaSata Nesbitt Stamas

Bizon Lauwers Outman Theis

Bumstead MacDonald Polehanki VanderWall

Daley McBroom Runestad Victory

Horn McCann Schmidt Wojno

Irwin McMorrow Shirkey Zorn

Johnson

Nays—10

Ananich Bullock Hertel Moss

Bayer Chang Hollier Santana

Brinks Geiss

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senate Bill No. 509, entitled

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 263 Yeas—32

Alexander Hertel McCann Schmidt

Bayer Horn McMorrow Shirkey

Bizon Irwin Moss Stamas

Brinks Johnson Nesbitt Theis

Bullock LaSata Outman VanderWall

Bumstead Lauwers Polehanki Victory

Daley MacDonald Runestad Wojno

Geiss McBroom Santana Zorn

Nays—3

Ananich Chang Hollier

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senate Bill No. 438, entitled

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 9c of chapter IV (MCL 764.9c), as amended by 2020 PA 393.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 264 Yeas—35

Alexander Geiss McBroom Schmidt

Ananich Hertel McCann Shirkey

Bayer Hollier McMorrow Stamas

Bizon Horn Moss Theis

Brinks Irwin Nesbitt VanderWall

Bullock Johnson Outman Victory

Bumstead LaSata Polehanki Wojno

Chang Lauwers Runestad Zorn

Daley MacDonald Santana

Nays—0

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

House Bill No. 4219, entitled

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 265 Yeas—30

Alexander Daley McBroom Shirkey

Ananich Geiss McMorrow Stamas

Bayer Hertel Moss Theis

Bizon Hollier Nesbitt VanderWall

Brinks Horn Outman Victory

Bullock Irwin Santana Wojno

Bumstead LaSata Schmidt Zorn

Chang Lauwers

Nays—4

Johnson McCann Polehanki Runestad

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—1

MacDonald

In The Chair: President

House Bill No. 4220, entitled

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 266 Yeas—29

Alexander Daley Lauwers Schmidt

Ananich Geiss McBroom Shirkey

Bayer Hertel McMorrow Stamas

Bizon Hollier Moss VanderWall

Brinks Horn Nesbitt Victory

Bullock Irwin Outman Wojno

Bumstead LaSata Santana Zorn

Chang

Nays—5

Johnson Polehanki Runestad Theis

McCann

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—1

MacDonald

In The Chair: President

Senator Lauwers moved to reconsider the vote by which the following bill was passed:

House Bill No. 4219, entitled

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 267 Yeas—29

Alexander Daley Lauwers Schmidt

Ananich Geiss McBroom Shirkey

Bayer Hertel McMorrow Stamas

Bizon Hollier Moss VanderWall

Brinks Horn Nesbitt Victory

Bullock Irwin Outman Wojno

Bumstead LaSata Santana Zorn

Chang

Nays—5

Johnson Polehanki Runestad Theis

McCann

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—1

MacDonald

In The Chair: President

House Bill No. 4308, entitled

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 268 Yeas—34

Alexander Geiss McCann Schmidt

Ananich Hertel McMorrow Shirkey

Bayer Hollier Moss Stamas

Bizon Horn Nesbitt Theis

Brinks Irwin Outman VanderWall

Bullock Johnson Polehanki Victory

Bumstead LaSata Runestad Wojno

Chang Lauwers Santana Zorn

Daley McBroom

Nays—0

Excused—1

Barrett

Not Voting—1

MacDonald

In The Chair: President

Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:

“An act to provide for the registration, titling, sale, transfer, and regulation of certain vehicles operated upon the public highways of this state or any other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles and distressed vehicles; to provide for the licensing of dealers; to provide for the examination, licensing, and control of operators and chauffeurs; to provide for the giving of proof of financial responsibility and security by owners and operators of vehicles; to provide for the imposition, levy, and collection of specific taxes on vehicles, and the levy and collection of sales and use taxes, license fees, and permit fees; to provide for the regulation and use of streets and highways; to create certain funds; to provide penalties and sanctions for a violation of this act; to provide for civil liability of manufacturers, the manufacturers of certain devices, the manufacturers of automated technology, upfitters, owners, and operators of vehicles and service of process on residents and nonresidents; to regulate the introduction and use of certain evidence; to regulate and certify the manufacturers of certain devices; to provide for approval and certification of installers and servicers of certain devices; to provide for the levy of certain assessments; to provide for the enforcement of this act; to provide for the creation of and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to impose liability upon the state or local agencies; to provide appropriations for certain purposes; to repeal all other acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act or contrary to this act; and to repeal certain parts of this act on a specific date,”

The Senate agreed to the full title.

House Bill No. 4309, entitled

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending sections 33 and 48 of chapter XVII (MCL 777.33 and 777.48), as amended by 2017 PA 152.