Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 Senate Bill 211: Use certain vehicle registration fees for administration not road repairs
Public Act 71 of 2007
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Michael Switalski (D) on February 20, 2007, to not transfer fees charged for transferring a plate from one vehicle to another acquired by the same person to the fund that pays for road construction and repair projects, but instead retain these fees for administrative purposes.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 20, 2007.
- Reported in the Senate on April 4, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on April 19, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that would allow the affected fees to finally be used for road projects beginning in late 2009, assuming the legislature does not vote at a later date to continue to use them for administrative expenses. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on April 19, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 20, 2007.
- Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate on April 24, 2007, to not transfer fees charged for transferring a plate from one vehicle to another acquired by the same person to the fund that pays for road construction and repair projects, but instead retain these fees for administrative purposes through fiscal year 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on April 24, 2007.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on April 24, 2007.
- Reported in the House on May 17, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 5, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on September 23, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described, except to change the sunset on the current use from 2009 to 2008. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on September 23, 2007.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on April 24, 2007.
- Passed 76 to 31 in the House on September 23, 2007, to not transfer fees charged for transferring a plate from one vehicle to another acquired by the same person to the fund that pays for road construction and repair projects, but instead retain these fees for administrative purposes through fiscal year 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on September 24, 2007.
- Passed 29 to 9 in the Senate on September 25, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on September 25, 2007, the vote by which the House substitute was concurred in.
- Withdrawn by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on September 25, 2007.
- Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 28, 2007.
Most Recent Comments
1) NbSRSuwwxQYkhcNi by Anonymous Citizen on March 20, 2008D2hZEf Cool, bro!
Reply
Senator Kahn asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Kahn's statement is as follows:
I received today something that I would like to share with you and through you to our members and to the people of the state of Michigan. We have been fighting for weeks and months to keep some of our Secretary of State offices open, and, in fact, in the budget that we sent over to the House, there has been a requirement that the department shall keep some of these offices open. Concurrently with that effort, we have looked at this from the point of view of voting rights and a violation of voting rights for our citizens. I have received today a copy of a letter sent to the Secretary of State regarding her request for pre-approval of the closure of the Buena Vista Secretary of State office, a closure that was done virtually in the dead of night without a hearing and without inclusion.
These are areas in which information was not provided and which has led to questions on the part of the federal government about the appropriateness of that closure and of the other closures throughout the state. They have not provided information about the requirements of state law to promulgate regulations, or, let alone, an electronic record of the voting age of the people within Buena Vista who have driver's licenses; or what qualifies as a good cause for a waiver of the fee for a nondriver's license ID; or the number of election date challenges issued against voters in each precinct. Nor have they provided a detailed description of the measures that will be and have been taken in order to inform Buena Vista folks of the photo ID requirement; or record of any public notices--that should be easy to do--because there were none; or records of any public notices, hearings, or other consultations regarding the decision by the Secretary of State to close that office and other offices. Nor has there been a list with addresses of all state or local agencies, including the office in Buena Vista, that offer voter registration services.
These were things that pre-registration, pre-approval of closure presupposed and none were done, and this closure we will continue to fight and very likely seek an injunction to prevent.
Reply
Senator Gleason, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House substitute for Senate Bill Nos. 210 and 211.
Senator Gleason's statement is as follows:
My "no" vote would accompany the previous speaker's statement from the 32nd District. I share several of the concerns. There has been consistent effort the last few years to take this money and shift it around for an executive of the state of Michigan's activities. The Senator from Detroit mentioned the concerns that I have spoken about for the last few nights in regard to the budget cuts as well, and that is an issue that I hold very dear in my heart that we are not making these facilities accessible but actually making them more of burdensome.
The Secretary of State has constitutional obligations and we do as well. We are talking about diverting money from one fund to another. I don't know if we have seen an example of a responsible expenditure of the funds that have been dedicated to the Secretary of State to date. The site that I can mention in Fenton, Michigan, has brought in over $11 million worth of transactions, last year alone. The savings to the Secretary of State to consolidate the Fenton office with the site in Clarkston, which, by the way, has not been determined yet, is going to save $28,000.
So I believe there is a concern whether there is judicious expenditures of the resources that were given to the department already. That and other reasons are why I voted "no" on Senate Bill Nos. 210 and 211.
Reply
View Full Conversation
