2011 Senate Bill 180

Show analysis

Introduced in the Senate

Feb. 22, 2011

Introduced by Sen. John Proos (R-21)

To provide a “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Judiciary budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.

Referred to the Committee on Appropriations

April 27, 2011

Amendment offered

With the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

Consideration postponed

Substitute offered

To adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate on various spending items and programs. For details see <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2011-SFA-0180-U.pdf">analysis</a> from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency.

The substitute passed by voice vote

Passed in the Senate 26 to 12 (details)

The Senate verion of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012 Judiciary budget. This would appropriate $256.9 million in gross spending, compared to $260.3 million the previous year. Of this, $152.5 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues); $88.1 million is from earmarked fees, fines and other revenue; and $5.5 million is federal money.

Received in the House

April 27, 2011

Referred to the Committee on Appropriations

May 12, 2011

Substitute offered by Rep. Chuck Moss (R-40)

The substitute passed by voice vote

Passed in the House 62 to 46 (details)

To "adopt" a version of this budget, but in fact replace all the appropriations with $100 "placeholders." This is essentially a means for sending the budget to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.

Received in the Senate

May 12, 2011

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.

Failed in the Senate 0 to 38 (details)

May 25, 2011

Received

Passed in the Senate 26 to 11 (details)

The House-Senate conference report for the 2011-2012 Judiciary budget. This would appropriate $256.9 million in gross spending, compared to $260.3 million the previous year. Of this, $152.5 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues); $88.1 million is from earmarked fees, fines and other revenue; and $5.5 million is federal money.

Motion

To give the bill immediate effect.

The motion passed 26 to 11 (details)

Received in the House

May 25, 2011