Now, I recognize the realities of how this has gone, and how Republicans have looked at this particular issue for a long time is that this is something that the other side of the aisle tends to be much more organized with and since they have the higher population areas, typically it’s more economical to provide this kind of transportation in areas where their voters reside. So Republicans have traditionally fought against this over those issues. But I think we also recognize that the sword often cuts both ways when it comes to election policies and election decisions, and that we should be trying to look at these as dispassionately and as objectively as possible. How do we maintain fair elections and elections where the voters are not intimidated and where neither party can somehow just be unshackled to go to a ridiculous extreme? That’s why I have tried to bring forward in the debate on this issue this reasonable amendment, I think, to say intimidation is wrong and electioneering is wrong.
It is not that farfetched to believe that somebody like Mike Lindell or another person who’s very wealthy on the conservative side of the equation could be sponsoring hundreds, if not thousands of buses with huge labels and banners on them and free materials to give away to people who will take a ride and listen to their speech on the way to the polling place. I don’t think that’s what anybody here is honestly desiring to create or wants to see happen. So, to set up these as much more neutral in appearances, I’ve never said that it can’t say who sponsored the bus or anything like that, we didn’t include that in any of this language. We are just saying intimidation is wrong, and the posing of a whole bunch of materials and other signage or individuals in the transport who would be leveraging on those who need a ride to the polls, which is what this is all about.
We are talking about populations who can’t get to the polls unless we provide them with this means of transportation. That’s why the sponsors are pushing this so hard. Because apparently we have a population who, one, cant get there on their own and, two, can’t access the polls through the other means that are now provided to them through mail options. So this is their way to the polls, and yet now they’re going to have to subject themselves to potentially ridiculous intimidation and foolishness by some of the worst that all of us have seen from both sides of the aisle over the last several cycles. So I recommend a “yes” vote.
Senator Moss’ second statement is as follows:
I truly appreciate the dialogue on this issue, both on the floor and that we had in committee, but I think a lot of it overthinks what we’re trying to achieve here. Again, you cannot give a ride to someone who isn’t willing to take the ride, it is the choice of the voter. To have these concerns about electioneering or even a candidate on the bus or mode of transportation to the polls—if I was a Republican, and a Democratic candidate offered me a ride to the poll, I would take that ride to vote against that candidate. So I think there’s a lot of overthinking here about the impact and effect of what happens on the ride to the poll.
You are going to go to the poll and make your choice in the privacy of the voting booth. The mode of transportation, if it’s not accessible, is important. Here in the state of Michigan, we are alone—nearly alone in the country that Lyft and Uber couldn’t provide discounted rides for folks to the polls. So I don’t have this alarming concern that so much electioneering is going to happen between the pickup and the dropoff from a voter perspective when they are willing to take that ride and exercise their right to vote in the privacy of the voting booth. I’d like my remarks printed in the Journal and I oppose this amendment.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, resumed the Chair.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4644, entitled
A bill to adopt the uniform power of attorney act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: