Legislation watch
2003 House Bill 4824 (House Roll Call 273)
Amendment offered by Rep. David Woodward (D) on June 19, 2003, to require popular elections for all intermediate school districts (ISDs) board members. The amendment failed in the House (14 to 81) on June 19, 2003. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 14 in favor, 81 opposed, and 15 not voting
(House Roll Call 273 at House Journal 54)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported the amendment:
| Accavitti (D) | Bradstreet (R) | Drolet (R) | Ehardt (R) | Farrah (D) | Garfield (R) |
| Lipsey (D) | Meisner (D) | O'Neil (D) | Phillips (D) | Robertson (R) | Voorhees (R) |
| Wojno (D) | Woodward (D) |
The following legislators opposed the amendment:
The following legislators did not vote on the amendment:
| Adamini (D) | Brown (D) | Daniels (D) | Dennis (D) | Gieleghem (D) | Hart (R) |
| Kolb (D) | LaSata (R) | Meyer (R) | Mortimer (R) | Murphy (D) | Pumford (R) |
| Waters (D) | Whitmer (D) | Williams (D) |
Most Recent Comments
1) School elections [by Anonymous Citizen on March 10, 2007]Boy talk about full circle, we seperated school elections because they go lost on the November ballot and now we are putting them back to get lost. Why not take the school election back they way they were before the Ward changes. Let them hold their own when they want and where. Let them conduct them. Lower cost and the public knows what is going on.
Reply
Reps. Adamini and Anderson, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on HB 4820-23, HB 4824 (H-1), HB 4825-8 for the following reasons:
1. This package removes local control from school boards and transfers it to other local units of government. Once there is absence of local control, things can go out of control.
2. There are numerous school districts where the boundaries are not coterminous with the corresponding township, city or village. Thereby, this package would force these local clerks to divide precincts into correct school districts. Even with the Qualified Voter File, this mandate would be very laborious for local clerks.
3. Those who support this package pull out the worse case scenarios where the turnout rate is low and there is little to none publicity about school elections. To the contrary, there are many school districts that publicize their elections and have active participation. For example, the Jackson ISD had an election in the same month where voters where choosing the replacement for their state representative in a special election. The turn out was greater for the ISD election than the other one. This proves with proper notice that all school boards do not run stealth elections.
4. If it is the goal of the sponsors to increase voter turnout, other mechanisms such as same day voter registration and no excuse absentee ballot would be more effective."
Reply
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his his protest against the passage of the bill, vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I respect what the good representative from Oakland County is attempting to accomplish with this amendment, however I voted against it because creating additional elective offices by amendment to the consolidation of election bill package is not the appropriate legislative
Reply
View Full Conversation
