(Source: MIRS.news, Published 11/02/2023) The House failed to get the votes needed to pass legislation directing a piece of the state’s sales tax revenue to local governments with high crime rates after Republican members in politically competitive Detroit suburbs and four Democrats declined to vote.
House Speaker Pro Tem Laurie Pohutsky (D-Livonia) closed the board on HB 4605 and called out the names of the fence-sitting House members for nearly 20 minutes, but none of the holdouts budged.
Bill sponsor Rep. Alabas A. Farhat (D-Dearborn) criticized Republicans for voting against public safety funding increases, while Republicans said the package doesn’t ensure the funding pool will go to law enforcement facing shortages. When the package failed, 52-51, four Democrats and three Republicans had not yet voted.
Rep. Nate Shannon (D-Sterling Heights)’s HB 4605 and Farhat’s HB 4606 together created a Public Safety and Violence Prevention Fund to take 1.5% of the 4-cent portion of the state’s sales tax.
The House Fiscal Agency estimated the fund would have raised about $110.8 million in fiscal year 2024.
The money would go towards cities, villages and townships with violent crime rates that are at least proportional to the state’s average crime rate.
During prior committee testimony, Farhat said a municipality will have access to the funds until it’s unable to turn the new state money into at least a 5% drop in its violent crime rate.
Initially, Rep. Julie Rogers (D-Kalamazoo) and some House Republicans paused on the package, and said they believed counties should be able to get a portion of the new funding.
Though the bills were supported by the Michigan Municipal League (MML), Michigan Townships Association and large cities like Detroit, Lansing, Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids. The Michigan Association of Counties initially opposed the bills.
In committee, the bills were amended to include a provision for counties to receive the funding.
If the county has a population of at least 90,000, its revenue would be distributed to each city, village and township in that county that provides police services.
If a county has a population of under 90,000, the revenue would be distributed to each city or village in that county that provides police services, but to the county on behalf of townships that provide or contracts to provide police services.
Farhat said that amendment was included for townships that don’t provide police services.
But Farhat said the package was again amended through negotiations with Republicans yesterday to ensure that townships remain included.
“When we did that, they moved the goalposts,” he said, and wanted the package to designate the entirety of the fund to law enforcement, and not other violence prevention initiatives.
“We shouldn’t be moving the goalposts and playing politics with our frontliners, with our law enforcement officials, with our public safety workers,” he said.
Rep. Mike Harris (R-Clarkston), also a former law enforcement officer, said if the violence prevention fund doesn’t include specific provisions for law enforcement spending, there’s no guarantee law enforcement will see it.
He said the money could go to any “woke programs,” which he followed up and defined as non-law enforcement social initiatives, giving the example of dollars allocated for unarmed social worker intervention programs.
“I think this money should go to upping our staffing across the state because we have a huge shortage,” he said.
Harris confirmed he was one of the people that negotiated with Farhat yesterday, and after reading through the bill more thoroughly, he had additional questions.
“I even asked him directly…is this money allocated for law enforcement? Or is this open to other programs?” Harris said. “And he initially argued, no, this money all goes to law enforcement, and I challenged him on it."
Harris said Farhat backed up and said, “Well, no, this could go to other programs. Anything a community deems to be possible violence prevention.”
Farhat criticized the request by Republicans, which he said showcases a lack of trust in local governments to spend the money as it will best benefit their communities.
But Republicans expressed their opposition during voting by simply not voting.
After Pohutsky invoked a rule requiring members to sit at their desks, multiple members, such as Rep. Jamie Thompson (R-Brownstown) and Jaime Greene (R-Richmond), refused to answer or turn around.
When the board was closed, all Republicans had voted no except Reps. Joseph A. Aragona (R-Clinton Township), Greene and John Roth (R-Interlochen). Roth was not present.
All Democrats had voted, save Reps. Abraham Aiyash (D-Hamtramck), Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton), Phil Skaggs (D-Grand Rapids) and Dylan Wegela (D-Garden City), who also did not vote.
Republicans cheered when HB 4605 failed, and Pohutsky responded, “I really wouldn’t if I were you, guys.”
The vote was reconsidered and then temporarily passed, meaning it could be brought back up later.
When asked why the bill was allowed to formally fail, when past bills in danger of failing have been cleared before they could, Farhat said it’s high time that people understood that there should be no games played when folks are risking their lives.
“If you truly meant to vote no, well, the people in Michigan now know you meant to vote no,” he said. “I think you will play games and you win certain prizes when you play games. In this case, they got to win their prize, and that was sending the message that they don't back law enforcement.”
Farhat pulled out several examples of funding that Republican-represented districts could have received.
He said Thompson’s district, specifically the city of Taylor, was in line to receive $800,000 in new revenue sharing under the package, while Rep. Kathy Schmaltz (R-Jackson) voted against $1 million in Jackson and Rep. Timothy Beson (R-Bay City) voted against $600,000 in addition to public safety spending.
“Make no misgivings about this. Every single Democrat that was on the board voted yes for this,” he said.
When asked about the Democrats that hadn’t yet voted, Farhat said some of those members are part of leadership, and it can be customary for them to hold off voting until it's known the votes for passage are there.
He was then asked if the House expected 56 votes from their own caucus.
Farhat replied that “there’s something to be said about bipartisanship,” but did not confirm either way if Democrats would have had the votes on their own.
Harris said it’s “very disingenuous to think that this is just a Republican issue of not liking law enforcement.
“I mean, there's four of us that spent our entire careers in law enforcement,” he said.
He said if the bill was amended to specify that money would go only to law enforcement, it would likely change some Republican minds.
“I think it would have changed some, yes,” he said. “It would have changed mine. I'm hoping there's continuing negotiations on this, but as of right now, it's not anything I can support.”
In other news:
- The House unanimously approved Rep. Helena Scott (D-Detroit)’s HB 4722, which removes the designation of the third Saturday in June as “Juneteenth National Freedom Day,” to stop conflict with the 2023-passed bill designating June 19th as both “Juneteenth” and a public holiday in Michigan.
- The House passed Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit)’s SB 382 and Rep. Ranjeev PURI (D-Canton)’s HB 4720, which require state agencies to create services for limited English proficiency Michiganders.
Both bills passed, 56-52.
- The House voted again in support of SB 280, a bill requiring the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to establish a dental screening program instructing parents to have their child’s teeth checked within six months of entering kindergarten or first grade.
It was amended to remove the requirement for the 2023-2024 school year, and passed, 84-24.
