Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus (R) on October 10, 2007, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to repeal various provisions of the state Constitution that have been ruled unconstitutional by state or federal courts. These include: A requirement that an elector have property in a district that is affected by an election in order to be qualified to vote; the formula for reapportioning State senatorial and representative districts; provisions that establish a Commission on Legislative Apportionment; term limit requirements for members of Congress; and language stating that unreasonable search and seizure provisions are not to be construed to bar from evidence any drug, firearm, bomb, explosive, or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house.
- Referred to the Senate Campaign & Election Oversight Committee on October 10, 2007.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on October 17, 2007. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on October 17, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Sen. Michelle McManus (R) on November 7, 2007, to replace the previous version of the resolution with one that does not contain the proposed changes to Article I, Section 11 regarding evidence in criminal trials. Other changes revise details but do not change the substance of the resolution as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on November 7, 2007.
- Passed 27 to 0 in the Senate on November 7, 2007, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to repeal various provisions of the state Constitution that have been ruled unconstitutional by state or federal courts. These include: A requirement that an elector have property in a district that is affected by an election in order to be qualified to vote; the formula for reapportioning State senatorial and representative districts; provisions that establish a Commission on Legislative Apportionment; and term limit requirements for members of Congress.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Motion by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on November 7, 2007, that further consideration of the joint resolution be postponed for today. The motion failed 16 to 22 in the Senate on November 7, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Moved to reconsider by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on November 7, 2007, the vote by which the joint resolution was adopted. The motion failed 17 to 21 in the Senate on November 7, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on November 7, 2007.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on November 7, 2007.
Comments
1) Re: 2007 Senate Joint Resolution I (Repeal unconstitutional provisions in state Constitution) by crazycajun on December 7, 2008sorry, but once again, history has proven you wrong.
you are right that a joint resolution SHOULD be passed in a timely fashion, but it HASN'T. and it WON'T.
the legislature is perfectly happy keeping the old unconstitutionalites perfectly in place. they serve a purpose, which is why they are still here after a hundred years.
good luck.
The Mackinac Center synopsis of this resolution says:
[quote user="admin"]Introduced in the Senate on October 10, 2007, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to repeal various provisions of the state Constitution that have been ruled unconstitutional by state or federal courts. These include: A requirement that an elector have property in a district that is affected by an election in order to be qualified to vote; the formula for reapportioning State senatorial and representative districts; provisions that establish a Commission on Legislative Apportionment; and term limit requirements for members of Congress.
The vote was 27 in favor, 0 opposed and 11 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 477 at Senate Journal 117)
[/quote]
This sensible housecleaning resolution could have placed the
amendment question on this year’s November election ballot, but it bogged down in the legislature over who-knows-what sort of obstructionist politics.
An identical Joint Resolution should be introduced and passed in timely
fashion during the next legislative session, which opens in January 2009.
n3m42bvbv6vfnjg7
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
