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 by voice vote in the Senate on June 14, 2005.
• Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• 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 by voice vote in the House 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 by voice vote in the House on June 28, 2005.
• Passed 102 to 0 in the House 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on June 29, 2005.
• Failed 0 to 35 in the Senate 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on September 13, 2005.
• Passed 36 to 1 in the Senate 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on September 13, 2005.
• Passed 106 to 0 in the House 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 28, 2005.