(Source: MIRS.news, Published 10/02/2023) If the Legislature is unable to pass implementation language on the financial disclosure elements in Proposal 1 by the end of the year, anyone in the state would have standing to ask the Michigan Supreme Court to step in.
It's not clear by the language of last year's constitutional amendment what it allows the Supreme Court to do, exactly. Would the justices order the Legislature to pass implementation language immediately? Would they go ahead and write their own rules for financial disclosure?
Nobody really knows and Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield) is making sure we don't find out.
Moss, the chair of the Senate Elections and Ethics Committee, said he's well aware of the constitutional shot clock on passing Proposal 1 implementation legislation by the end of the year.
However, he reminded MIRS, and anyone else who cares to listen, that the House and Senate passed Proposal 2 implementation language prior to summer break. That was on an accelerated clock, as well, but they were able to meet it.
Like Proposal 2, lawmakers are trying to model Michigan's disclosure law among the nation's best, Moss said.
He and primary bill sponsor Sen. Sam Singh (D-East Lansing), House Ethics and Oversight Committee Chair Erin Byrnes (D-Dearborn) are working on draft language that they hope to introduce as soon as next week.
Among the questions Moss & Crew need to figure out is the extent to which sitting state officials will need to disclose their assets. Will it be done to the penny? Will it be revealed in ranges? Will the focus be on spotlighting money-making opportunities among lawmakers?
Original jurisdiction starts in that Supreme Court. What happens from there? I don't know if anyone has worked that hypothetical.
Watching from the sidelines on all of this is Rep. Andrew Fink (R-Osseo). He, too, saw the Democrats pass several bills in the spring and he said he doesn't understand why the financial disclosure bills that were clearly supported by a majority of voters last year haven't even had a single hearing, yet.
"It's not as though there was ambiguity on what needed to be done," Fink said, adding the verbiage of the constitutional amendment looks clear cut.
As part of the proposal that altered the state's term limit law, a constitutional amendment reads, "If legislation implementing this section is not enacted by December 31, 2023, a resident of this state may initiate a legal action against the legislature and the governor in the Michigan supreme court to enforce the requirements of this section."
