Listen to this article
Where the state legislature voted to amend the Michigan minimum wage statute in a manner that dramatically altered and virtually eliminated the changes voters sought through the initiative process, that decision violated the people’s constitutionally guaranteed right to propose and enact laws through the initiative process.
Reversed.
“In 2018, the Legislature received initiative petitions that proposed raising Michigan’s minimum wage, allowing for compensatory time in lieu of overtime, and providing paid sick leave to employees. Under Michigan’s Constitution, the Legislature could vote to adopt the initiatives as presented, reject the initiatives but place them on the general election ballot, or propose alternatives to the initiatives’ proposed language and place both the alternative and original proposals on the general election ballot. Const 1963, art 2, §9. After receiving the petitions, the Legislature voted in September 2018 to adopt both into law. …
“But following the November 2018 general election, the lame duck Legislature voted to amend the laws in a manner that dramatically altered and virtually eliminated the changes voters sought through the initiative process. … We hold that this decision to adopt the initiatives and then later amend them in the same legislative session (what has been referred to as ‘adopt-and-amend’) violated the people’s constitutionally guaranteed right to propose and enact laws through the initiative process. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstate 2018 PA 337 and 2018 PA 338 as set forth in this opinion. …
“The Constitution’s plain text provides the Legislature with three discrete options upon receiving a valid initiative petition. Const 1963, art 2, §9. The two options through which the Legislature rejects an initiative require the issue to then go directly to voters. … The third option—adoption—is the only option that does not require voters to decide the matter directly. … Thus, the plain text of Article 2, §9 makes clear that the Legislature cannot reject or alter an initiative without the voters’ approval. We hold that the text unambiguously provides the Legislature with only three options when presented with a valid initiative petition. …
“In sum, by adopting the Wage Act and the Earned Sick Time Act and then later stripping those acts of their key features in the same legislative session, the Legislature unconstitutionally violated the people’s initiative rights. Accordingly, we hold that the Amended Wage Act and the Amended Earned Sick Time Act are unconstitutional. …
“For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we hold that Article 2, §9 provides the Legislature with three—and only three—options upon receiving a valid initiative petition. Any legislative response to a valid initiative petition that falls outside those three discrete options is unconstitutional and impermissibly infringes upon the people’s reserved power. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and hold that 2018 PA 368 and 2018 PA 369 are unconstitutional. Moreover, except as discussed earlier in this opinion, we hold that the Wage Act and the Earned Sick Leave Act shall go into effect 205 days after this opinion’s publication date.”
Dissenting justices’ comments
CLEMENT, C.J. (dissenting). “Article 4, §1 of our Constitution vests the legislative power in the Legislature, which includes the power to amend existing laws. And it has always been understood that the Legislature’s power under Article 4, §1 is limited only if the Constitution expressly says so. Article 2, §9 is silent about whether the Legislature may amend a law proposed by initiative petition that the Legislature has enacted, yet the majority concludes that the Constitution restricts the Legislature from amending a law proposed by initiative petition in the same legislative session (but, curiously, not later sessions). There is certainly reason to be frustrated by the Legislature’s actions here: enacting laws proposed by initiative petition to avoid ballot approval only to substantially alter them in the same legislative session. But nothing in Article 2, §9 restricts the Legislature from doing so. And as tempting as it might be to step into the breach, this Court lacks the power to create restrictions out of whole cloth. That power remains with the people, as our Constitution dictates. I therefore dissent. I would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
ZAHRA, J. (dissenting). “… Without a single vote of support from the elected Legislature or the citizens, this Court has now written the public policy of this state as to minimum wages, tipped wages, and earned sick time. Because the remedy chosen by the majority lacks support in the law of this state and improperly encroaches on the authority constitutionally provided to the Legislature, I dissent.”
