Public Act 149 of 2005

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

• Introduced by Sen. Michael Prusi (D) on March 2, 2005, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Judiciary budget. This appropriates $257.7 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $253.2 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $159.9 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $158.0 million. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964.
  • Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 2, 2005.
    • Reported in the Senate on June 14, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the Senate on June 14, 2005, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the Senate and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items and funding sources. For much more detail see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency”>analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 14, 2005.
• Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on June 14, 2005, the senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Judiciary budget. This appropriates $250.9 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $253.2 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $155.8 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $158.0 million. [Vote Details and Comments]
• Received in the House on June 16, 2005.
  • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 16, 2005.
    • Reported in the House on June 28, 2005. The reported passed in the House by voice vote on June 28, 2005.
  • Substitute offered in the House on June 28, 2005, to replace the Senate-passed version of this budget with one that “strips” all actual appropriations. See House-passed version for explanation. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 28, 2005.
• Passed in the House (102 to 0) on June 28, 2005, to send the bill back to the Senate "stripped" of all actual appropriations, leaving it in its orginal form as a "template" or "placeholder." This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. [Vote Details and Comments]
• Received in the Senate on June 29, 2005.
• Failed in the Senate (0 to 35) on June 30, 2005, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
• Received in the Senate on September 13, 2005.
• Passed in the Senate (36 to 1) on September 15, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Judiciary budget. This appropriates $252.8 million in adjusted gross spending, compared to $253.2 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $157.6 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $158.0 million. [Vote Details and Comments]
• Received in the House on September 13, 2005.
• Passed in the House (106 to 0) on September 21, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Judiciary budget. This appropriates $252.8 million in adjusted gross spending, compared to $253.2 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $157.6 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $158.0 million. [Vote Details and Comments]
• Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 28, 2005.