STATE OF MICHIGAN
Journal of the Senate
102nd Legislature
REGULAR SESSION OF 2023
Senate Chamber, Lansing, Thursday, June 22, 2023.
10:00 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Jeremy Moss.
The roll was called by the Secretary of the Senate, who announced that a quorum was present.
Albert—present Hauck—present Moss—present
Anthony—present Hertel—present Nesbitt—present
Bayer—present Hoitenga—present Outman—present
Bellino—present Huizenga—present Polehanki—present
Brinks—present Irwin—present Runestad—present
Bumstead—present Johnson—present Santana—excused
Camilleri—present Klinefelt—present Shink—present
Cavanagh—present Lauwers—present Singh—present
Chang—present Lindsey—present Theis—present
Cherry—present McBroom—present Victory—present
Daley—present McCann—present Webber—present
Damoose—present McDonald Rivet—present Wojno—present
Geiss—present McMorrow—present
Senator John Damoose of the 37th District offered the following invocation:
Heavenly Father, today I feel prompted to pray for the children of our state. Let us sacrifice for them, not the other way around. I pray that they may have life. I pray that You guide us to put them first when we consider policies that will affect their education, health, safety, security, and future prosperity. I pray that You make us the generation that sacrifices our own comfort, ease, and finances to leave them a state and a country that is worth living in.
We pray this in Jesus’ name. Amen.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, led the members of the Senate in recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Motions and Communications
Senator Singh moved that Senator Anthony be temporarily excused from today’s session.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Singh moved that Senator Santana be excused from today’s session.
The motion prevailed.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
General Orders
The motion prevailed, and the President pro tempore, Senator Moss, designated Senator Wojno as Chairperson.
After some time spent therein, the Committee arose; and the President pro tempore, Senator Moss, having resumed the Chair, the Committee reported back to the Senate, favorably and without amendment, the following bills:
Senate Bill No. 214, entitled
A bill to amend 1846 RS 84, entitled “Of divorce,” by amending section 34 (MCL 552.34), as amended by 1983 PA 211.
A bill to amend 2001 PA 125, entitled “An act to define the rights and responsibilities of hotels and bed and breakfasts with respect to renting or leasing hotel or bed and breakfast rooms to minors,” by amending section 4 (MCL 427.304).
A bill to amend 2018 PA 434, entitled “Safe families for children act,” by amending section 5 (MCL 722.1555).
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending sections 13, 520d, 520e, and 520l (MCL 750.13, 750.520d, 750.520e, and 750.520l), section 13 as amended by 2015 PA 210, sections 520d and 520e as amended by 2012 PA 372, and section 520l as amended by 1988 PA 138.
A bill to amend 1919 PA 160, entitled “An act to release legally married minors from parental control and to determine their marital rights and duties,” by amending section 1 (MCL 551.251).
The bills were placed on the order of
Third Reading of Bills.
Senate Bill No. 209, entitled
A bill to amend 1921 PA 352, entitled “An act to prohibit the marriage of a person under 16 years of age and to declare the marriage void,” by amending the title and section 1 (MCL 551.51), as amended by 1983 PA 198.
Substitute (S-2).
Senate Bill No. 210, entitled
A bill to amend 1887 PA 128, entitled “An act establishing the minimum ages for contracting marriages; to require a civil license in order to marry and its registration; to provide for the implementation of federal law; and to provide a penalty for the violation of this act,” by amending section 3 (MCL 551.103), as amended by 2006 PA 578.
Substitute (S-2).
Senate Bill No. 211, entitled
A bill to amend 1897 PA 180, entitled “An act to provide for the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates without publicity in certain cases; and to provide criminal and civil penalties for violation of this act,” by amending section 1 (MCL 551.201), as amended by 1983 PA 199.
Substitute (S-2).
Senate Bill No. 212, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 386, entitled “Estates and protected individuals code,” by amending sections 2519, 5103, 5204, 5206, and 5215 (MCL 700.2519, 700.5103, 700.5204, 700.5206, and 700.5215), section 2519 as amended by 2010 PA 325, section 5103 as amended by 2016 PA 483, section 5204 as amended by 2005 PA 204, and section 5215 as amended by 2020 PA 365.
Substitute (S-1).
Senate Bill No. 213, entitled
A bill to amend 1968 PA 293, entitled “An act to establish the status of minors; to define the rights and duties of parents; to establish rights and duties to provide support for a child after the child reaches the age of majority under certain circumstances; and to establish the conditions for emancipation of minors,” by amending sections 4 and 4e (MCL 722.4 and 722.4e), section 4 as amended by 1998 PA 509 and section 4e as added by 1988 PA 403.
Substitute (S-2).
Senate Bill No. 377, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” (MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 34b to chapter IX.
Substitute (S-1).
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Motions and Communications
The following communication was received and read:
Office of the Senate Majority Leader
June 21, 2023
Pursuant to rule 3.203(c) I reassign Senate Bill 398 to the Committee on Energy and Environment.
Respectfully,
Winnie Brinks
Senate Majority Leader
29th District
The communication was referred to the Secretary for record.
Senate Bill No. 209
Senate Bill No. 210
Senate Bill No. 211
Senate Bill No. 212
Senate Bill No. 213
Senate Bill No. 214
Senate Bill No. 215
Senate Bill No. 216
Senate Bill No. 217
Senate Bill No. 246
Senate Bill No. 377
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Introduction and Referral of Bills
Recess
Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time being 10:19 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.
Senators Johnson, Lauwers, Runestad, Theis and Bellino introduced
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 2253 and 5145 (MCL 333.2253 and 333.5145), section 2253 as amended by 2022 PA 274 and section 5145 as amended by 2020 PA 311.
The
bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on
Oversight.
Senators Camilleri, Moss, Chang and Geiss introduced
A bill to create a state voting rights act; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to provide for a court-appointed monitor under certain circumstances; to create a fund; to prohibit certain discriminatory activity and to prescribe civil sanctions; and to provide remedies.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Elections and Ethics.
Senators Moss, Camilleri, Chang and Geiss introduced
A bill to create a voting and elections database and institute; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; and to provide remedies.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Elections and Ethics.
Senators Chang, Camilleri, Moss and Geiss introduced
A bill to provide for language assistance for elections; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; and to provide for remedies.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Elections and Ethics.
Senators Geiss, Camilleri, Chang and Moss introduced
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 726, 736, 751, and 931 (MCL 168.726, 168.736, 168.751, and 168.931), section 931 as amended by 1996 PA 583, and by adding sections 726a, 753, and 753a; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Elections and Ethics.
Senator Victory introduced
A bill to amend 1951 PA 51, entitled “An act to provide for the classification of all public roads, streets, and highways in this state, and for the revision of that classification and for additions to and deletions from each classification; to set up and establish the Michigan transportation fund; to provide for the deposits in the Michigan transportation fund of specific taxes on motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels; to provide for the allocation of funds from the Michigan transportation fund and the use and administration of the fund for transportation purposes; to promote safe and efficient travel for motor vehicle drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other legal users of roads, streets, and highways; to set up and establish the truck safety fund; to provide for the allocation of funds from the truck safety fund and administration of the fund for truck safety purposes; to set up and establish the Michigan truck safety commission; to establish certain standards for road contracts for certain businesses; to provide for the continuing review of transportation needs within the state; to authorize the state transportation commission, counties, cities, and villages to borrow money, issue bonds, and make pledges of funds for transportation purposes; to authorize counties to advance funds for the payment of deficiencies necessary for the payment of bonds issued under this act; to provide for the limitations, payment, retirement, and security of the bonds and pledges; to provide for appropriations and tax levies by counties and townships for county roads; to authorize contributions by townships for county roads; to provide for the establishment and administration of the state trunk line fund, local bridge fund, comprehensive transportation fund, and certain other funds; to provide for the deposits in the state trunk line fund, critical bridge fund, comprehensive transportation fund, and certain other funds of money raised by specific taxes and fees; to provide for definitions of public transportation functions and criteria; to define the purposes for which Michigan transportation funds may be allocated; to provide for Michigan transportation fund grants; to provide for review and approval of transportation programs; to provide for submission of annual legislative requests and reports; to provide for the establishment and functions of certain advisory entities; to provide for conditions for grants; to provide for the issuance of bonds and notes for transportation purposes; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; to provide for the making of loans for transportation purposes by the state transportation department and for the receipt and repayment by local units and agencies of those loans from certain specified sources; to investigate and study the tolling of roads, streets, highways, or bridges; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 10k (MCL 247.660k), as amended by 2010 PA 135.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Senators Anthony and Cavanagh introduced
A bill to amend 2020 PA 68, entitled “Michigan reconnect grant recipient act,” by amending sections 11, 15, and 21 (MCL 390.1711, 390.1715, and 390.1721), as amended by 2022 PA 252.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Senators Cavanagh and Anthony introduced
A bill to amend 2020 PA 84, entitled “Michigan reconnect grant act,” by amending sections 1 and 5 (MCL 390.1701 and 390.1705), as amended by 2022 PA 251.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time being 10:33 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Moss.
During the recess, Senator Anthony entered the Senate Chamber.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Resolutions
Senate Resolution No. 62.
A resolution to recognize June 23-29, 2023, as Grassroots Week.
Whereas, Grassroots Week is a week to appreciate, highlight, and honor precinct delegates and grassroots leaders throughout the state of Michigan; and
Whereas, A healthy democracy requires participation from every person; and
Whereas, The term “grassroots” refers to movements which mobilize masses to participate in politics; and
Whereas, Grassroots movements are often organized by everyday people rather than elected leaders; and
Whereas, Precinct delegates represent the smallest level of organization in our districting system; and
Whereas, These delegates must be residents of their precinct and act as the link between their community and their elected party; and
Whereas, Precinct delegates are often the principal organizers of grassroots work in their neighborhoods, calling upon their network of connections to move forward a worthy cause; and
Whereas, Delegates commit themselves to many important duties, including registering their neighbors to vote and electing candidates in party conventions, supporting the preferences of their precinct; and
Whereas, Precinct delegates and grassroots organizers deserve recognition for their sacrifice of time, energy, and passion, all of which are essential for building participation in our democracy; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That the members
of this legislative body recognize June 23-29, 2023, as Grassroots Week. We
salute the service of precinct delegates and grassroots leaders across the
state; and be it further
Resolved, That we encourage every Michigan resident to express their gratitude for precinct delegates’ active engagement in our democratic process.
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Cavanagh’s statement is as follows:
Today I rise in support of my resolution, Senate Resolution No. 62, declaring June 23rd through the 29th as Grassroots Week in the state of Michigan. The term “grassroots” refers to movements that mobilize masses to participate in politics and our democracy. A grassroots movement is in action when everyday people are the leaders of change.
We recognize June 23 as the start of Grassroots Week in honor of a historic moment in the civil rights movement and Michigan’s history. On June 23, 1963, civil rights leaders joined Detroit city officials and community leaders for a march to protest widespread racial injustice. These leaders include Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and then-Mayor of Detroit Jerome Cavanagh—my grandfather—as they led the Detroit Walk to Freedom, which drew 125,000 participants and was one of the largest civil rights demonstrations in Michigan’s history. In a time of tension and opposition to the civil rights movement, Detroit leaders worked from the ground up, rising above the obstacles and bringing people together to advance a shared goal.
Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the Walk to Freedom, and I still find myself in awe of the community-based groundwork that took place and is continuing to take place in order to organize historic movements and events. To grow up hearing the power of grassroots organizing is to believe in the power of people working for change. Everyone in this chamber knows the people it takes to be here—from rallying supporters, to real conversations with voters, to the tireless work of volunteers and organizers on our campaigns and in our communities.
In particular, this resolution highlights the never-ending dedication of our precinct delegates, who are grassroots leaders that rarely receive appreciation for the essential work they do year round to build civic engagement in our communities. Precinct delegates are tasked with harnessing the untapped power, passion, and purpose of our neighborhoods to better our communities. It is here where movements come together and we make meaningful and lasting progress towards our shared goals. From my grandfather marching the streets of Detroit to my own experience as a precinct delegate, I am almost certain I would not be here today without the power of grassroots organizing.
This resolution is a thank you to the community organizers and precinct delegates of Michigan’s past, present, and future for the work they have done and will continue to do to advance progress and make change in our great state. I ask my colleagues for your support of this resolution to honor Michigan’s grassroots leaders, thank them for their service to our democracy, and celebrate the victories of grassroots movements in our state’s history and future.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 377
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 377, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” (MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 34b to chapter IX.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 369 Yeas—24
Anthony Cherry Klinefelt Moss
Bayer Daley Lauwers Polehanki
Brinks Geiss McBroom Shink
Camilleri Hertel McCann Singh
Cavanagh Huizenga McDonald Rivet Victory
Chang Irwin McMorrow Wojno
Nays—13
Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad
Bellino Hoitenga Nesbitt Theis
Bumstead Johnson Outman Webber
Damoose
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The motion prevailed.
Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:
This bill is part of a project that I’ve been pleased to be a part of for a number of months now to reestablish the Sentencing Guideline Commission. The fact that Michigan doesn’t have a Sentencing Guideline Commission and that we have problems, I think, easily go hand-in-hand. We have these problems, we aren’t sure how long people should be in—are they in too long, are they in too short? And here we are as legislators, picking random numbers at times for how long somebody should be sentenced for violating one of the crimes that we create in law or amend in law.
The commission would help us have better data. The commission has expertise and knowledge, and I am very pleased with much of the construction of the commission as far as bringing people on board who are experts—who aren’t just stakeholders in the sense that they see criminals, but that they are dealing with them. I think the balance on there between the law-and-order side and the incarcerated side and the victims side is very important and I am happy to see that all of those stakeholders are represented, but not in one way that skews it too much to one side or the other. And in fact, I think you could argue still puts the heavier emphasis on the side of law and order and protecting the people, and not simply on the incarcerated rights side.
The issues brought up by my colleague beforehand, I am very aware of. How our Department of Corrections has for years now skewed the results of the recidivism to falsely represent recidivism by changing the definitions of it or by only saying it’s recidivist if they do certain things but not if they do other things. If they violate parole, that’s not recidivism they say. And that is a lie. The Department of Corrections has long foisted this lie onto the backs of our local sheriff’s departments and our local county jails, forcing the dollars to be spent at the local level rather than at the state level, and this is terrible and egregious. It has been reported in the newspapers and in many accounts for over a decade now, and I have spoken out on it numerous times. It is part of the significant reforms we need to make at our Department of Corrections, some of which I have offered here as amendments to budget bills. But that has nothing to do with this commission. It has nothing to do with what this commission would do. This commission is simply to examine the length of sentences and advise us as to how long those should be. Are they too long? Are they too short? And they have no power to enact those recommendations, only to give them to us who do have that power.
I appreciate my colleague from the 3rd District for her partnership on this and for many others who have put a lot of time into this on both sides of the aisle, and I would appreciate your consideration to vote “yes.”
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:
Senate Bill No. 209
Senate Bill No. 210
Senate Bill No. 211
Senate Bill No. 212
Senate Bill No. 213
Senate Bill No. 214
Senate Bill No. 215
Senate Bill No. 216
Senate Bill No. 217
Senate Bill No. 246
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 209, entitled
A bill to amend 1921 PA 352, entitled “An act to prohibit the marriage of a person under 16 years of age and to declare the marriage void,” by amending the title and section 1 (MCL 551.51), as amended by 1983 PA 198.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator McBroom offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 1, line 5, after “age” by striking out “A” and inserting “Except as provided in subsection (3), a”.
2. Amend page 2, following line 6, by inserting:
“(3) An individual at least 16 years of age but younger than 18 years of age may marry an individual at least 16 years of age but younger than 18 years of age with written consent from all of that individual’s parents or legal guardians. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a probate judge shall allow the marriage of an individual described in this subsection. Before performing the marriage of an individual described in this subsection, the probate judge shall ask the individuals if the individuals are being forced or coerced into the marriage and shall not perform the marriage if the individuals indicate the individuals are being forced or coerced into the marriage.”
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 2, following line 13, by inserting:
“(e) House Bill No. 4539.
(f) House Bill No. 4540.”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 370 Yeas—36
Albert Cherry Johnson Nesbitt
Anthony Daley Klinefelt Outman
Bayer Damoose Lauwers Polehanki
Bellino Geiss Lindsey Shink
Brinks Hauck McBroom Singh
Bumstead Hertel McCann Theis
Camilleri Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Victory
Cavanagh Huizenga McMorrow Webber
Chang Irwin Moss Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—1
Runestad
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The motion prevailed.
Senator McBroom’s first statement is as follows:
I rise to support my amendment. My amendment would allow for marriages for those who are 16 and 17 explicitly, and only to others who are 16 and 17, and only with the permission of both parents or guardians, and only also with the permission of the probate judge who is required to ask questions such as, Is coercion occurring? Is there a danger element? Are you being threatened?
Overall in this package, I think that it is creating a one-size solution to a problem that has significant nuance and differing dynamics and that we could solve a number of these problems without doing one-size-fits-all. I’m offering this amendment as an example of one of the ways we could do some narrow tailoring to these otherwise reasonable discussion points that are raised on some of these bills. I think there’s room for other reasonable disagreement and that my amendment offers a nuanced solution to one part of those problems.
Thank you, Mr. President. I recommend a “yes” vote.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
The amendment I have simply says, “A person shall not provide a puberty-blocking drug to a minor to delay or suppress pubertal development in that minor to assist that minor with gender transition,” and it also correlates, “A person shall not provide genital gender reassignment surgery to a minor.”
We’re talking about in many cases very young children making these decisions or parents making these decisions that absolutely alter the rest of their lives. I think if we’re going to say you can’t get married at the age of 16 or 17—when, by the way, you legally can have sex—but very young children can take puberty blockers that will alter their entire life and have gender reassignment surgery that will alter the rest of their life, that also should be prohibited.
Senator Albert’s statement is as follows:
I am voting “yes” on this legislation
today. I do so because the good outweighs some of the concerns I have
about the lack of possible exceptions. The current law in Michigan allows for a
minor who is 16 or 17 years of age to enter into marriage with the written
consent of one parent or legal guardian. A minor under the age of 16 is
permitted to enter into marriage with the consent of both, all living parents
or legal guardians, and the order of a probate judge. This statute is extremely
flawed and puts young vulnerable girls at risk of being abused. It is entirely
justifiable to seek a change to this law to better protect our kids. That’s why
I’m supporting this legislation.
I do believe, however, this legislation could be improved upon as the process moves forward. Certainly marriage at certain ages—below the age of 16, for example—should be prohibited without exception under any circumstances. I do have concerns about cases for example where a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old may become pregnant and the mother and father desire to be married. They may think it is in the best interest of the upbringing of their child among other possible reasons. In these types of scenarios, for 16- or 17-year-olds, we could increase safeguards. For example, we could require the consent of all living parents or legal guardians and we could require the order of a probate judge. This type of policy would better protect young girls from abuse while recognizing there are some circumstances that warrant discretion on whether marriage should be allowed.
I’ll be the first to agree that it is not an optimal situation for two teenagers to find themselves in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy. The fact of the matter is while this may not be ideal, there are benefits of marriage in this situation and it is imprudent to fail to weigh the interests of the child. In crafting these laws, we must take into consideration these types of hard realities. But again, the good with this legislation carries far outweighs other considerations, so I support it and ask that we open the door to possible improvements as the legislation moves forward.
Senator Anthony’s statement is as follows:
In 2018 as a newly-elected State Representative, we first started to champion the archaic practice of child marriage in which thousands of Michigan children were married off. Now the majority of them were child brides and year after year, we did not receive hearings or receive any traction on this legislation. Even today, we have child marriage survivors who have spent countless years advocating for us to end this practice, so I’m excited to be voting “yes” on this bill and the entire package.
I urge a “yes” vote on something we should have tackled a long time ago, but I hope we continue to prioritize children in the state of Michigan.
Senator McBroom’s second statement is as follows:
Mr. President, many of my thoughts and feelings were expressed by my colleague from the 18th District, Senator Albert, earlier. I too feel there’s many merits such as were just mentioned by the bill sponsor to this discussion and many issues that I’m frankly flabbergasted have existed for this long and weren’t even addressed when the original laws were written—to not have an age minimum is just really surprising. When you first get these jobs, there’s numerous laws you encounter that you’re kind of surprised by; it’s like, Wow, I didn’t think that existed.
But I do believe that it’s appropriate to consider that this is a one-size-fits-all approach to an issue that is not a one-size-fits-all problem. There’s obviously significant differences between a 17-year-old who is getting married versus a 10-year-old who is getting married. There’s obviously many other nuances such as the age of consent and the legal ages we allow for sexual behavior to begin. And to fail to identify and distinguish between those in this legislation is an unfortunate outcome. I was asked earlier today as I was considering this issue how would I feel if my own daughter who’s going to be 17 in just a few months—and then of course most of you know I have quite a few other children coming up after that—how would I feel if they came to me at 16 years old or 17 and said they want to get married. Quite honestly, I think any father is reluctant to turn his daughter over to some guy, but I would believe that if I as a parent had seen the relationship grow and can identify the maturity of my child, that I should be able to, in concert with them, approach that issue and make those determinations, particularly if they’ve gotten to the stage when they have a child or are expecting a child.
I believe, once again, as I mentioned in my amendment discussion earlier, I believe we’re failing to address the nuance to the circumstance that we ought to be looking at. Certainly we are aware of the circumstances that are brought up repeatedly about those who are coerced into marriage or brought into them through circumstances that involve human trafficking and other terrible practices, and I wish today within this we were acknowledging those distinguishing differences as, mentioned earlier, should have been done a very long time ago.
I’ll be voting “yes” on almost all of these bills, believing that, as my predecessor said earlier, the good outweighs the bad. But I hope we won’t be closed to hearing alternatives and additional solutions in the future to create the nuance that can be necessary within our society.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 210, entitled
A bill to amend 1887 PA 128, entitled “An act establishing the minimum ages for contracting marriages; to require a civil license in order to marry and its registration; to provide for the implementation of federal law; and to provide a penalty for the violation of this act,” by amending section 3 (MCL 551.103), as amended by 2006 PA 578.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 1, line 5, after “marriage.” by inserting “When an individual 17 years of age but under 18 years of age has 1 parent’s or legal guardian’s consent to enter military service, that individual may contract marriage, and the other individual with whom that individual would contract marriage may also contract marriage with 1 parent’s or legal guardian’s consent, if the other individual is also 17 years of age but under 18 years of age.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Singh moved that further consideration of the bill be postponed temporarily.
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 211, entitled
A bill to amend 1897 PA 180, entitled “An act to provide for the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates without publicity in certain cases; and to provide criminal and civil penalties for violation of this act,” by amending section 1 (MCL 551.201), as amended by 1983 PA 199.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 371 Yeas—34
Albert Cherry Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Daley Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Damoose McBroom Shink
Bellino Geiss McCann Singh
Brinks Hauck McDonald Rivet Theis
Bumstead Hertel McMorrow Victory
Camilleri Huizenga Moss Webber
Cavanagh Irwin Nesbitt Wojno
Chang Johnson
Nays—3
Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the
bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 212, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 386, entitled “Estates and protected individuals code,” by amending sections 2519, 5103, 5204, 5206, and 5215 (MCL 700.2519, 700.5103, 700.5204, 700.5206, and 700.5215), section 2519 as amended by 2010 PA 325, section 5103 as amended by 2016 PA 483, section 5204 as amended by 2005 PA 204, and section 5215 as amended by 2020 PA 365.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 372 Yeas—35
Albert Cherry Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Daley Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Damoose Lindsey Shink
Bellino Geiss McBroom Singh
Brinks Hauck McCann Theis
Bumstead Hertel McDonald Rivet Victory
Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Webber
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Chang Johnson Nesbitt
Nays—2
Hoitenga Runestad
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 213, entitled
A bill to amend 1968 PA 293, entitled “An act to establish the status of minors; to define the rights and duties of parents; to establish rights and duties to provide support for a child after the child reaches the age of majority under certain circumstances; and to establish the conditions for emancipation of minors,” by amending sections 4 and 4e (MCL 722.4 and 722.4e), section 4 as amended by 1998 PA 509 and section 4e as added by 1988 PA 403.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 373 Yeas—37
Albert Daley Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Geiss Lindsey Runestad
Bellino Hauck McBroom Shink
Brinks Hertel McCann Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Theis
Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Webber
Chang Johnson Nesbitt Wojno
Cherry
Nays—0
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 214, entitled
A bill to amend 1846 RS 84, entitled “Of divorce,” by amending section 34 (MCL 552.34), as amended by 1983 PA 211.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Runestad offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 1, line 1, after “34.” by inserting “(1)”.
2. Amend page 2, following line 4, by inserting:
“(2) A married individual who is under 18 years of age may bring an action to annul a marriage or may initiate an action for divorce under the laws of this state.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Singh moved that further consideration of the bill be postponed temporarily.
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 215, entitled
A bill to amend 2001 PA 125, entitled “An act to define the rights and responsibilities of hotels and bed and breakfasts with respect to renting or leasing hotel or bed and breakfast rooms to minors,” by amending section 4 (MCL 427.304).
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 374 Yeas—37
Albert Daley Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Geiss Lindsey Runestad
Bellino Hauck McBroom Shink
Brinks Hertel McCann Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Theis
Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Webber
Chang Johnson Nesbitt Wojno
Cherry
Nays—0
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 216, entitled
A bill to amend 2018 PA 434, entitled “Safe families for children act,” by amending section 5 (MCL 722.1555).
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 375 Yeas—37
Albert Daley Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Geiss Lindsey Runestad
Bellino Hauck McBroom Shink
Brinks Hertel McCann Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Theis
Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Webber
Chang Johnson Nesbitt Wojno
Cherry
Nays—0
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the
bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 217, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending sections 13, 520d, 520e, and 520l (MCL 750.13, 750.520d, 750.520e, and 750.520l), section 13 as amended by 2015 PA 210, sections 520d and 520e as amended by 2012 PA 372, and section 520l as amended by 1988 PA 138.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 376 Yeas—37
Albert Daley Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Geiss Lindsey Runestad
Bellino Hauck McBroom Shink
Brinks Hertel McCann Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Theis
Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Webber
Chang Johnson Nesbitt Wojno
Cherry
Nays—0
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 246, entitled
A bill to amend 1919 PA 160, entitled “An act to release legally married minors from parental control and to determine their marital rights and duties,” by amending section 1 (MCL 551.251).
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 377 Yeas—37
Albert Daley Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Geiss Lindsey Runestad
Bellino Hauck McBroom Shink
Brinks Hertel McCann Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Theis
Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Victory
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Webber
Chang Johnson Nesbitt Wojno
Cherry
Nays—0
Excused—1
Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Singh moved that Senator Camilleri be excused from the balance of today’s session.
The motion prevailed.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to consideration of the following bill:
A bill to amend 1887 PA 128, entitled “An act establishing the minimum ages for contracting marriages; to require a civil license in order to marry and its registration; to provide for the implementation of federal law; and to provide a penalty for the violation of this act,” by amending section 3 (MCL 551.103), as amended by 2006 PA 578.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Runestad,
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 378 Yeas—31
Albert Cherry Johnson Polehanki
Anthony Daley Klinefelt Shink
Bayer Damoose Lauwers Singh
Bellino Geiss McCann Theis
Brinks Hauck McDonald Rivet Victory
Bumstead Hertel McMorrow Webber
Cavanagh Huizenga Moss Wojno
Chang Irwin Nesbitt
Nays—5
Hoitenga McBroom Outman Runestad
Lindsey
Excused—2
Camilleri Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
My amendment basically says, “When an individual 17 years of age but under 18 years of age has 1 parent’s or legal guardian’s consent to enter military service, that individual may contract marriage, and the other individual with whom that individual would contract marriage may also contract marriage with 1 parent’s or legal guardian’s [signature], if the other individual is also 17 years of age but under 18 years of age.”
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to consideration of the following bill:
A bill to amend 1846 RS 84, entitled “Of divorce,” by amending section 34 (MCL 552.34), as amended by 1983 PA 211.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Runestad,
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 379 Yeas—36
Albert Daley Klinefelt Outman
Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki
Bayer Geiss Lindsey Runestad
Bellino Hauck McBroom Shink
Brinks Hertel McCann Singh
Bumstead Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Theis
Cavanagh Huizenga McMorrow Victory
Chang Irwin Moss Webber
Cherry Johnson Nesbitt Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—2
Camilleri Santana
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Announcements of Printing and Enrollment
House Bill Nos. 4293 4294 4295 4296 4297 4298 4299 4300 4301 4302
The Secretary announced that the following bill was printed and filed on Wednesday, June 21, and is available on the Michigan Legislature website:
House Bill No. 4832
The Secretary announced that the following bills were printed and filed on Thursday, June 22, and are available on the Michigan Legislature website:
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The Committee on Labor submitted the following:
Meeting held on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., Room 1300, Binsfeld Office Building
Present: Senators Cherry (C), Cavanagh and Albert
Excused: Senator Camilleri
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The Committee on Energy and Environment submitted the following:
Meeting held on Thursday, June 22, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., Room 403, 4th Floor, Capitol Building
Present: Senators McCann (C), McDonald Rivet, Singh, Bayer, Shink, Hertel, Camilleri, Chang, Polehanki, Lauwers, Damoose, Outman, Hauck and Bellino
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The Committee on Labor submitted the following:
Meeting held on Thursday, June 22, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., Room 1300, Binsfeld Office Building
Present: Senators Cherry (C), Camilleri, Cavanagh and Albert
Senator Singh moved that the Senate adjourn.
The motion prevailed, the time being 11:58 a.m.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, declared the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, June 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
DANIEL OBERLIN
Secretary of the Senate