Senate Bill No. 90, entitled

A bill to amend 1976 PA 453, entitled “Elliott-Larsen civil rights act,” by amending section 103 (MCL 37.2103), as amended by 2023 PA 6.

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

Roll Call No. 315 Yeas—33

Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki

Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana

Bellino Hauck McCann Shink

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh

Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Theis

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Victory

Chang Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Cherry Klinefelt Outman Wojno

Daley

Nays—5

Albert Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:

Protest

Senator Runestad, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 90 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Ever since I was in the House I have seen bills—especially with an emotional component—get passed through without, really, the consideration of unintended consequences. I remember a bill I fought in the House—in the caucus, on the floor, back in the caucus, held it up for a while, spoke against it on the floor of the House, went over to the Senate and fought it over there—because I truly believed there were unintended consequences with the bill. Last year, the Supreme Court made a ruling that they had to rule in a specific way on a case because of the way the law was written. They said the law needs to go back to the Legislature because—I don’t have the exact term—it was so poorly written and that there were unintended consequences. So here we are again, and there’s probably going to be a lot more over the next three-and-a-half years where I am looking down the road at potential unintended consequences.

This specific bill, which I probably could support if it was more narrowly tailored, says, “‘Race’ is inclusive of traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to”—what does that mean, “not limited to”? It means anything else—“not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles. For purposes of this definition, ‘protective hairstyles’ includes, but is not limited to.” What do those words mean? Those mean anything else at all, such as hair locks, braids and twists. So what we are talking about here is about as open-ended a language as you could possibly imagine.

For government, anything you pass like this—no problem—they can absorb that. Big corporations? It doesn’t matter how you write it, they can absorb anything. But if you are a small business, making sure that you write the language on these bills is very important. If you have an individual abusing this law, the way it is written, it could have a negative impact on a small business that needs to survive. So again, if it were more narrowly tailored I could support it. It is not, so I will oppose it.

Senators Santana, Geiss and Anthony asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Santana’s statement is as follows:

Today I would like to draw your attention to a subject that is deeply rooted in the history of our nation and continues to impact our society today—the roots of Black hair discrimination in the context of slavery. The legacy of slavery has left an indelible mark on the many aspects of African American life, including the way Black hair has been perceived, stigmatized, and discriminated against.

Traditional hair styles in African culture were not only showcasing the style but the way to communicate, identify the community or tribe, and establish a hierarchy of status. During the era of slavery, African Americans endured unspeakable atrocities including the forced separation from their families, physical abuse, and the denial of basic human rights. One of the many ways in which their identity has systemically devalued was through the depreciation of their natural hair. The diversity and beauty of Black hair which is characterized by the unique texture, thickness, and versatility were seen as signs of inferiority and were often subject to ridicule and oppression. Slavery imposed Eurocentric standards of beauty on African Americans, reinforcing the belief that the features associated with whiteness were superior and desirable. Consequently, African American slaves were coerced into adopting European hairstyles such as straightening their hair or weaving wigs to conform to the distorted ideas.

This is not a mere matter of personal choice but rather a survival strategy to navigate a society that systemically dehumanized them. These demeaning standards of beauty do not dissipate the abolishment of slavery, but the post-slavery era as systematic racism persists and discriminatory practices still continue today. Black individuals who choose to embrace their natural hair face social, economic, and professional consequences. Their hair has been deemed unprofessional, unkempt, or even unhygienic creating significant barriers to employment, education, and social mobility.

Thankfully in recent years, there has been a resurgence of pride and celebration of Black hair. The natural hair movement has gained momentum, empowering individuals to reject societal pressures and embrace their natural beauty. Through social media, Black men and women have reclaimed their cultural heritage and challenged the longstanding stereotypes surrounding Black hair. Nonetheless, the battle against hair discrimination is far from over. It requires all collective efforts to dismantle entrenched biases, challenge discriminatory policies, and create inclusive spaces to celebrate the diversity of Black hair. We must recognize that embracing natural hair is not a political statement or a trend, but an essential part to affirming the humanity and dignity of all individuals.

In conclusion, the roots of Black hair discrimination can be traced back to the dark days of slavery when African Americans were stripped of their identity and forced to conform to the oppressive standards. We must acknowledge the painful history and work tirelessly to dismantle this system that perpetrates discrimination against Black hair. By doing so, we move closer to building a society that values and respects the inherent beauty of every individual regardless of their hair texture and cultural background.

Senator Geiss’ statement is as follows:

I rise to support Senate Bill No. 90. Colleagues, we just heard from our colleague from the 2nd Senate District on how racial hair discrimination is rooted in slavery. I know some are wondering why we’re doing this when slavery was abolished in the 19th century, and that today we see Black people wearing their hair in many ways. But we are here precisely because the ghosts of slavery and Caucasian-centered measures of idealized beauty, notions of respectability, and perceptions of civility still haunt us in overt and covert ways.

For the Black diaspora here in America, the CROWN Act is necessary, because for us, the issues around what comes out of one’s follicles and what one does with them are not inseparable. That we’re taking this vote during Mental Health Awareness Month is significant because the CROWN Act is not only a matter of racial justice, it’s a matter of protecting and preserving Black mental health.

During the bill introduction press conference, a reporter asked about the cost of upkeep of Black hairstyles. While they were specifically referring to the financial cost, when it comes to Black hair that cost is not solely about greenbacks. It’s about the emotional cost that comes with the vestiges of the aforementioned history and its continued messages—both nuanced and blunt—against Black hair.

Imagine growing up in a world where you receive continual messages that the filamentous biomaterial of keratinocytes that burst forth from your follicles is unkempt, unruly, unmanageable, unattractive, uncivilized; that you have bad hair, that it’s too ethnic, that it needs significant altering to its cellular level to be considered acceptable, appropriate, attractive, presentable, professional, civilized, worthy. Imagine internalizing these messages and passing them on to your children, because it’s the best way to acceptance and survival. Imagine widely available images of beauty offering an erasure of your people. Imagine every year in elementary school on picture day being given a plastic pocket comb that was not only useless, but a cruel joke. Imagine being sent home from work or placed in a non-customer-facing position not because you presented an actual public health threat, but because someone decided you didn’t look right or belong in that space. Imagine being prevented from completing a school sports competition because you wore locks, when no such regulation existed. Imagine being diagnosed with alopecia because decades of conforming to Caucasian standards of beauty that tell us the hair your DNA created isn’t acceptable unless you inflict harm on yourself. Imagine random people—usually white—wanting to and sometimes having the audacity to reach out and fondle your hair as if you are an object, a curiosity, a pet, property.

These are just a fraction of examples of real scenarios from life without the protections the CROWN Act will provide. Now imagine the psychological toll this takes daily everywhere. It’s cumulative, lasting, perverse, traumatic, and wrong. The cost is significant. A significant number of scholarly texts have marked the negative psychological effects of racism such as the structural racism of hair discrimination, noting that experiences of racial discrimination are consistently linked with such mental health issues as depression, anxiety, and PTSD.

The American Psychological Association states, “Although the chronic condition of stress can have negative side effects on all persons, the unique psycho-social and contextual factors, specifically the common and pervasive exposure to racism and discrimination, creates an additional daily stressor for African-Americans.” Only recently have we acknowledged racism as a public health crisis. Simultaneously we’ve turned keen attention towards improving mental health. It is here, the two intersect and specifically addressing a form of structural racism that has harmful effects on mental health is vital.

Advancing the CROWN Act will do just that. The path to ending hair discrimination and harming Black mental health continues now. Let this vote today be the next step in making Senate Bill No. 90 among our crowning achievements.

Senator Anthony’s statement is as follows:

In 2018 I was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election and at the time when I was sworn in and they took a photo, I wore my hair in really long braids—fresh off the campaign trail, and I needed to protect my natural hair. A few weeks later, I pressed it out bone-straight, and in fact as a state lawmaker I have worn my hair in very, very unique and very different ways—twists, locks, curls, kinks, all types. And with every change of my hair, what didn’t change is who I am. My heart, my drive, my tenacity, my work ethic, and not once did I have to worry about being retaliated against, terminated, or reprimanded because of my hair styles, but this is unique to being a lawmaker. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many Michiganders, particularly African American Michiganders, as well as individuals throughout our entire country.

In 2019 I first introduced the CROWN Act here in the state of Michigan. Now CROWN stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural hair and this is intended to prohibit race-based discrimination. After introducing this bill in 2019—it had no co-sponsors, not much interest in this bill—I will tell you I was laughed out of rooms. People told me and encouraged me to focus on issues that really matter, things of substance—tax policy, focus on something that would mean real change for Michiganders. Even though bill after bill became law in states across the country, I started to get discouraged. Maybe I thought this is not an issue we need to focus on. But, I will tell you I’ve consistently been reminded that our job here as lawmakers is to lift up the voices of people who often are not heard here in the halls of power. I remembered and drew from stories I heard growing up. I remembered hearing stories in beauty shops and in barber shops all across my community, I heard from people at cookouts and I heard from people at my sorority meetings, real stories from Black co-workers, family members, folks who went to my church and at that moment after I introduced the bill, men, women, and children all over the state of Michigan and across the country reached out to share stories of humiliation, some were very graphic, all were very heart-breaking, about how their natural hair had created boundaries or barriers for them in the workplace and in school settings.

Men right here in Michigan who were denied health care services because of their locks. Others who had been told they needed to comb or even cut off their corn rows to appeal to a more conservative workplace. Children who have been denied the ability to play sports, take school pictures, or even walk across the graduation stage because their hair was not deemed appropriate. Women who have spent thousands of dollars and countless hours trying to straighten their hair in order to be deemed professional, to obtain or maintain employment. Black women and girls who have been embarrassed, mistreated, denied opportunities, and unfairly disciplined because of the way God has created us. Subjected to hot combs that burn our hair and our necks, relaxers that leave us with chemical burns and lifelong health complications, and often irreversible damage to our physical and mental health, all to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards that strip us away of our own identity.

Now we are often told by some, even members in this body, that hair discrimination is not a real issue, that it’s simply in our heads. A recent study by Michigan State University found that African American women faced the highest incidences of hair discrimination, that they are more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair. The study also determined that 80 percent of African American women felt they needed to switch their hairstyles to align with more conservative standards in an effort to fit into the workplace. A separate study by researchers at Duke University found that participants viewed Black hair such as afros, twists, and braids as less professional. The study determined that Black women with natural hair styles are less likely to land even a job interview as opposed to their white women counterparts or Black women who straighten their hair.

Senate Bill No. 150, entitled

A bill to amend 1973 PA 186, entitled “Tax tribunal act,” by amending section 62 (MCL 205.762), as amended by 2008 PA 128.

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

Roll Call No. 316 Yeas—36

Anthony Daley Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Damoose Lauwers Runestad

Bellino Geiss McBroom Santana

Brinks Hauck McCann Shink

Bumstead Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh

Camilleri Hoitenga McMorrow Theis

Cavanagh Huizenga Moss Victory

Chang Irwin Nesbitt Webber

Cherry Johnson Outman Wojno

Nays—2

Albert Lindsey

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senate Bill No. 262, entitled

A bill to amend 1941 PA 207, entitled “Fire prevention code,” by amending section 7b (MCL 29.7b).

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

Roll Call No. 317 Yeas—38

Albert Daley Lauwers Polehanki

Anthony Damoose Lindsey Runestad

Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana

Bellino Hauck McCann Shink

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh

Bumstead Hoitenga McMorrow Theis

Camilleri Huizenga Moss Victory

Cavanagh Irwin Nesbitt Webber

Chang Johnson Outman Wojno

Cherry Klinefelt

Nays—0

Excused—0

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:

Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to briefly describe this legislation. Here in Michigan we had regulations around camping tents that were designed many years ago when these tents were mainly made out of canvas. At that time, there were certain flame-retardancy and fire protection standards put into law. Unfortunately, those rules didn’t weather the test of time well. Now camping tents are made out of different materials, higher tech materials, and these flame-retardant chemicals don’t actually improve the fire protection performance of camping tents in the modern environment. This bill is a piece of legislation that I put together to meet at that nexus of lessening regulation and improving environmental protection because putting these cancer-causing flame-retardant chemicals on tents doesn’t work and it has the potential to make people a little bit more sick. So, I offer this bill and hope for the support of my colleagues today.

Senate Bill No. 326, entitled

A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 2 (MCL 205.92), as amended by 2023 PA 21.

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

Roll Call No. 318 Yeas—38

Albert Daley Lauwers Polehanki

Anthony Damoose Lindsey Runestad

Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana

Bellino Hauck McCann Shink

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh

Bumstead Hoitenga McMorrow Theis

Camilleri Huizenga Moss Victory

Cavanagh Irwin Nesbitt Webber

Chang Johnson Outman Wojno

Cherry Klinefelt

Nays—0

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President