Senators Brater, Thomas, Prusi, Whitmer, Cherry, Scott and Jacobs, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the motion to refer Senate Bill Nos. 957, 958, 1300, 53 and 7 to the Committee on Government Operations and Reform.
Senator Brater’s statement, in which Senators Scott and Jacobs concurred, is as follows:
I voted “no” because, apparently, that motion sent a number of bills back to committee that have already been on the calendar and agreed upon by committee based, apparently, solely on the sponsorship—being a Democratic member. Mr. President, I am growing increasingly concerned about the way this floor is being run. It seems that each of us was sent here to represent 270,000 constituents. We each have an obligation and a responsibility to represent those constituents by standing up and voicing our opinions, our views on public policy matters I think that is what each and every one of us has been doing today and in the previous weeks and months as we serve in this distinguished Senate. If there is some sense that debate must be squashed by “punishing” minority members of the minority party by either removing them from committee, cutting off debate, and sending bills back to committee, it seems to me this is a very low level of procedure and not in keeping with the customs and the traditions of the Senate of the state of Michigan.
Mr. President, I would just strongly suggest that we return this floor to a time of more stability, of more bipartisan cooperation, of more reaching across the aisle in a civil manner to an honest and sincere debate to reach public policy that is good for the citizens in the state of Michigan. We are in a time of crisis in this state and in this nation. This is no time for this type of petty squabbling. This is undistinguished behavior and I would ask that it cease.
Senator Thomas’ statement is as follows:
Mr. President, I feel responsible for the actions that have taken place today because I believe that it is important that we restore civility and common respect to this legislative process. I have had the privilege of serving with a number of the members of this chamber for ten years. However, I will be entering my thirteenth year of service, and I remember a time when immediate effect votes were not automatic, guaranteed votes. You actually had lawmakers interacting with each other talking about the pros and cons of those bills. I am simply trying to restore that level of respect of the minority party. It is the one opportunity that we have, and unfortunately, with the way that this Legislature has developed through term limits to have an open and upfront dialogue about the issues facing us.
I don’t think that it is inappropriate. I don’t think that it is, in any way, inappropriate for both sides of the aisles to have a discussion about whether a bill gets immediate effect or not. It is not that we don’t support legislation. In fact, all of these bills have probably passed this chamber and both chambers with an overwhelming majority of votes. So we are not in any way saying that this is bad policy, but we are saying these members on this side of the aisle do need to be respected, do need to be consulted, and have their opinion asked as well. Unfortunately, we only have one opportunity to do that and that is with our vote.
Today, 26 of us did not stand up and give our votes on immediate effect. I think it’s a shame that because of this procedural tactic that we are forced to take, innocent members of the Legislature and their constituents would now be, in effect, temporarily disenfranchised because their pieces of legislation important to them, bills that have passed out of committee unanimously, as well, those that are referred back are now sent back simply to punish the minority party because it dared, because it somehow dared to not grant immediate effect.
I think it’s petty and I think it diminishes the institution of the Senate. I think the Senate is better than that. I think in our democracy, we—all of us, minority and majority—should have an opportunity to have a free flow of ideas and discussion. We simply exercised our opportunity to have that discussion. I hope going forward we will continue to have that discussion and find it regrettable that I must offer a “no” vote explanation on such a day.
I would hope that going forward we would continue to have discussion and allow members in the minority party the opportunity to have their say.
Senator Prusi’s statement is as follows:
This is my second “no” vote explanation of the day and probably more than I have offered up in years. I am not typically one to complain or one to explain, but I do feel it is necessary to explain my “no” vote. There have been calls on the floor here—calls in various committees—that we need to get together; we need to work in a bipartisan fashion, and I think if you go back in the record, and I’ve got videotaped evidence of me mentioning those same words and offering that same cooperation in the past, but bipartisanship by definition involves two parties. It involves a two-way street. You cannot come up with some sort of a plan, throw it in front of us, say we’ve discussed it, ask us to bless it, and call it bipartisanship. There is a two-way street, and it has to be genuine. It cannot be something that is a façade. It cannot be something that can be put on simply for the sake of showing someone that you’re bipartisan when there is no real meat behind it.
I’ve offered bipartisan cooperation in the past. I’ll continue to hold out the hope that at some point in my legislative career I’ll actually see it happen around here, but that hope is dimming by the day here because I don’t see a two-way street. I see the one-way majority ramming things down our throats whenever you feel a political need. We are in a political season, but let’s not pretend that all the politics comes from one side of the aisle.
Senator Whitmer’s statement, in which Senator Jacobs concurred, is as follows:
Today alone, we have heard people give speeches about bipartisanship and then turn around and move to punish Democrats for having the audacity for disagreeing here on the floor by sending a bunch of Democratic bills to the Committee on Government Operations and Reform. Now does that make the talk of bipartisanship disingenuous? Well, to put it lightly, yes.
Now you want to talk about maintaining decorum? You cut off debate today by Democratic members citing the traditions of the Senate, but then turned around and made an exception for a Republican member on the next vote. And then you agreed that, okay, we’ll let a Democrat speak, but first you exacted a promise out of that Democrat that they are going to be “nice.” I was standing right there when it happened.
So you want to talk about the traditions of the Senate? You want to talk about decorum? You want to talk about bipartisanship? Well, here’s the irony: One of the bills that you re-referred today has my name on the bill. Yes, it says “Whitmer.” But, the truth be told, it is a bill drafted by one of your members for one of his constituents that he asked me to introduce, and I did so in the spirit of bipartisanship. I agreed to put my name on it to help him out. Now that’s ironic, but it also underscores the very reason that I voted “no” on the motion to refer the bills.
Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:
We are about one month away from an election, a little bit more than one month. I know that today is a day of politics. I think we all know that we have all been through a number of bills which are there specifically for politics. And, yet, as was said earlier by the other Senators, when we rose to object, as we should in this political system, we got cut out. I can’t go further to explain any more than what my colleagues have already explained. But I think it is also important that we all say what really happened here today—a day when we have a political day, getting ready for an election in which we fought for our side, and which we were again punished for that. This is not the first time, as you all know. It is at least the second and maybe even more than that.
I, again, urge my colleagues to have a bipartisan atmosphere in the chamber and to respect each other because as was said earlier, we all do represent 270,000 citizens. We all do have a right to our opinion, and we have a right to our say.