- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- Madam President, when I enrolled in the university, at Northern Michigan University, the cost you expect is the tuition and your room and board, and you pay these things, but what you don’t expect is all the fees, right? That’s what they really get you with is one fee after another—here’s a fee for student athletics, here’s a fee for the student activities, here’s a fee to pay for parking, and there’s all these fees. Anybody who’s got a credit card knows fees, we all hate fees, which are simply additional payments by some other name, but they are still the payment. Why not roll it all into one, right? That’s what we say when we talk about helping students with universities. Here’s how much you pay, plus fees, so that’s really actually what I’m paying. You can’t get out of paying the fees, you can’t forego paying the fees, it’s just more payment.
When it comes to what we expect of our prisoners and those who are being punished by the state, to say that somehow the fees they have to pay is anything other than additional fineage, I think, is a dangerous game of semantics. It is a game of words. A fee by any other name is still a fee, a fine by any other name is still a fine, and fines and fees are the same thing. What does our Constitution say? Our Constitution says, “All fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclusively applied to the support of such public libraries, and county law libraries as provided by law.” That’s where the money goes. Why do we do this? Why have we done this since one of our earliest constitutions in this state—more than 100 years ago? Because we recognize the danger of giving the one with the sword the power to profit by the sword. It is a dangerously unethical principle to allow the police powers of the state to profit through the execution of those police powers.
That is why I’ve been so proud to stand against the use of asset forfeiture, which was another great immorality foisted on the people of this state for decades that we have fortunately rolled back, and why I’ve been grateful to the courts for recognizing that what we were doing with these fines and fees was wrong, and why I have voted against these bills in the past and vote against the sunset extension today, or any other program that poses itself as something other than fines so we can do what we please with the money when it’s so clear what we’re supposed to do with fines.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5534, entitled
A bill to require the supreme court to analyze certain trial court costs and revenue sources; to develop and recommend a certain trial court fee schedule; to develop and recommend a certain trial court debt collection system; and to develop and recommend certain legislative proposals to change trial court funding.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Chang offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-1).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 1
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 17
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Vote date
- 2024-04-24
- Vote number
- 100
- Yeas
- 20