The Senate agreed to the full title.
Protests
Senators Johnson and Runestad, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 5541.
Senator Johnson moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the amendment she offered to the bill be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Johnson’s statement, in which Senator Runestad concurred, is as follows:
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment which would require that the bar exam in Michigan continue to have a component specific to Michigan law. I believe it is not unreasonable if someone wants to practice law in Michigan, that they be asked to demonstrate they have some familiarity with Michigan law. The current test includes a component specific to Michigan law and so I feel to pass this bill without such a requirement would serve to diminish standards in Michigan. I appreciate that the current Board of Law Examiners has expressed their intent to include a specific Michigan component for the bar exam, but the current language in the bill—which states that it is “in its discretion” and that they “may” do this—would allow any future boards to abolish this requirement at any time. I feel this requirement should be set in statute—that is our job—rather than to be totally discretionary and subject to change at any time with no additional legislative review or oversight. Thank you for consideration of this amendment, and Mr. President, should this amendment be defeated, I ask that you allow these comments to serve as my “no” vote explanation and be printed in the Journal.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4994, entitled
A bill to allow for the donation of unclaimed shoes held by persons engaged in the business of shoe repair.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: