Script-free related records · Release 2026-07-28.3
Related roll calls
Follow collected relationships through the same typed, immutable public API used by the enhanced record.
← Back to the script-free parent record
Showing 5 related records on this page. A total was not computed.
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protest
Senator Runestad, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 133.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I used to do financial services and insurance training for continuing education. I think the hours are important, and what this bill says is that four hours of active participation in an association counts toward the required 24 hours of continuing education, and that any activity undertaken by an insurance agent can count as one hour of continuing education—any activity. I wonder how many—like in the medical profession—they can join an association and work your way around your required courses with any activity.
To me, it seems preposterous. We’re saying that joining an association—and now you run around your required education, continuing education you’re required to take. What you need to be is a dues-paying member in good standing with the organization. The agent actively participates in the function. I mean, this is basically just saying, Join an association and then you don’t have to do at least four hours of your continuing education. The director of DIFS can just unilaterally determine that anything counts. Why have it at all? Why don’t we make all 24 hours—just join an association and pay the dues. I’m sure there’s somebody wanting to pay the dues for this, and I think that’s what’s behind this because all of the required courses are there for a reason. What this says is we’re—I believe a slippery slope—pay the dues, join an association—you don’t really have to do anything else—and you get the credit. I oppose this bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 423, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending sections 78g and 78q (MCL 211.78g and 211.78q), section 78g as amended by 2020 PA 256 and section 78q as amended by 2020 PA 33.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 2
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 1
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Vote date
- 2025-10-29
- Vote number
- 287
- Yeas
- 34
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- Resolved, That we urge the Republican majorities in Congress and President Trump to reopen the government, uphold health care access, and restore food access to people as soon as possible; and be it further
Resolved, That we call for an end to the deliberate obstruction of nutritional aid by the White House and Congressional Republicans, whose actions threaten the health, stability, and moral conscience of the nation; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, and the congressional delegation of Michigan.
The question being on the adoption of the concurrent resolution,
Senator Singh moved that Senator Klinefelt be excused from the balance of today’s session.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 3, line 26 after “urge” by striking out “the Republican majorities in Congress and President Trump” and inserting “Michigan Senators Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer”
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members not voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 3
- Motion text
- The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members not voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 18
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- failed
- Vote date
- 2025-10-29
- Vote number
- 288
- Yeas
- 16
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- Bayer Cherry McMorrow Shink
Brinks Geiss Moss Singh
Camilleri Hertel Polehanki Wojno
Cavanagh Irwin
Excused—3
Johnson Klinefelt McBroom
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The question being on the adoption of the concurrent resolution,
Senator Singh requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The concurrent resolution was adopted, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 3
- Motion text
- The concurrent resolution was adopted, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 16
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- adopted
- Vote date
- 2025-10-29
- Vote number
- 289
- Yeas
- 18
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- Johnson Klinefelt McBroom
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Senators Chang and Moss were named co-sponsors of the concurrent resolution.
Point of Order
Senator Lauwers raised the Point of Order that the concurrent resolution was not adopted because a majority of the members elected and serving did not vote “yea.”
The Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss, ruled that pursuant to Mason’s , § 42-8, where there is no additional provision in the Constitution, statute, or rule, parliamentary law requires only a simple majority vote.
Senator Lauwers appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question being shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Senate, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 3
- Motion text
- The decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Senate, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 16
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- unknown
- Vote date
- 2025-10-29
- Vote number
- 290
- Yeas
- 18
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- house
- Context text
- provide indigent defendants in criminal cases with effective assistance of counsel; to provide standards for
the appointment of legal counsel; to provide for and limit certain causes of action; and to provide for certain
appropriations and grants,”
The House agreed to the full title.
Rep. Posthumus moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Senate Bill No. 423, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending sections 78g and 78q
(MCL 211.78g and 211.78q), section 78g as amended by 2020 PA 256 and section 78q as amended by
2020 PA 33.
Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays
as follows:
- Excused
- Not recorded
- Motion text
- as follows:
- Nays
- 2
- Not voting
- Not recorded
- Result
- unknown
- Vote date
- 2026-07-03
- Vote number
- 291
- Yeas
- 106