Michigan Legislative Activity Ledger

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.

  1. Related record

    The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    senate
    Context text
    The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor. Third Reading of Bills The following bill was read a third time: Senate Bill No. 14, entitled A bill to amend 1969 PA 306, entitled “Administrative procedures act of 1969,” by amending sections 32 and 45 (MCL 24.232 and 24.245), as amended by 2018 PA 602. The question being on the passage of the bill, Senator Lauwers offered the following substitute: Substitute (S-2). The question being on the adoption of the substitute, Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor. The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
    Excused
    0
    Measure id
    measure-5654
    Motion text
    The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
    Nays
    20
    Not voting
    0
    Result
    failed
    Sitting id
    sitting-593
    Vote date
    2023-05-17
    Vote id
    vote-7069
    Vote number
    291
    Yeas
    18
  2. Related record

    The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    senate
    Context text
    Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno Excused—0 Not Voting—0 In The Chair: President Senator Webber offered the following amendment: 1. Amend page 9, following line 22, by inserting: “Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Joint Resolution C of the 102nd Legislature becomes a part of the state constitution of 1963 as provided in section 1 of article XII of the state constitution of 1963.”. 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 serving not voting therefor, as follows:
    Excused
    0
    Measure id
    measure-5654
    Motion text
    The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
    Nays
    20
    Not voting
    0
    Result
    failed
    Sitting id
    sitting-593
    Vote date
    2023-05-17
    Vote id
    vote-7070
    Vote number
    292
    Yeas
    18
  3. Related record

    The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    senate
    Context text
    Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno Excused—0 Not Voting—0 In The Chair: President Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment: 1. Amend page 3, following line 14, by inserting: “ (8) An agency shall not adopt or promulgate a rule that is more stringent than an applicable federal standard if this state’s unemployment rate is greater than the national average for any consecutive 3-month period in the preceding calendar year. This prohibition continues until this state’s unemployment rate is less than the national average for 3 consecutive months. ”. 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 serving not voting therefor, as follows:
    Excused
    0
    Measure id
    measure-5654
    Motion text
    The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
    Nays
    20
    Not voting
    0
    Result
    failed
    Sitting id
    sitting-593
    Vote date
    2023-05-17
    Vote id
    vote-7071
    Vote number
    293
    Yeas
    18
  4. Related record

    The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    senate
    Context text
    Excused—0 Not Voting—0 In The Chair: President Protests Senators Chang and Camilleri, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Lauwers to Senate Bill No. 14. Senator Chang moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the amendment be printed as her reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Chang’s statement, in which Senator Camilleri concurred, is as follows: In 1913—110 years ago—California passed the Alien Land Law. It was broadly written to include all immigrants in its exclusion, but at the time it really was focused on Japanese immigrants—Japanese farmers. The Asiatic Exclusion League was the organization pushing this bill at the time back in 1913. They then also advocated for Californians to boycott Japanese-owned restaurants. They used signs saying things like, Save California from the Japs; Japs keep moving, this is a white man’s neighborhood. This Alien Land Law prevented immigrants—Japanese farmers—from owning land in California, and in the 1920s Japanese immigrant landowners lost over 100,000 acres of land. The California Legislature then expanded this law to exclude U.S.-born children of Asian immigrants and Asian-owned businesses. Regardless of the Senator’s intent—I appreciate our conversation about it—we need to learn our history and we need to make sure we don’t repeat it. We need to be cognizant of the climate we’re in and the impact of the words we use in this chamber, as well as the amendments like this that could do harm. So I encourage my colleagues to vote “no.” The question being on the passage of the bill, The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
    Excused
    0
    Measure id
    measure-5654
    Motion text
    The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
    Nays
    18
    Not voting
    0
    Result
    passed
    Sitting id
    sitting-593
    Vote date
    2023-05-17
    Vote id
    vote-7073
    Vote number
    295
    Yeas
    20
  5. Related record

    Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

    Open script-free record →

    Inspect published fields
    Chamber
    house
    Context text
    Dievendorf Markkanen Roth Young Edwards Martin Schmaltz Zorn Nays—8 Beeler DeBoyer Fox Maddock Carra DeSana Friske Schriver In The Chair: Pohutsky The House agreed to the title of the bill. Rep. Aiyash moved that the bill be given immediate effect. The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor. Senate Bill No. 14, entitled A bill to amend 1969 PA 306, entitled “Administrative procedures act of 1969,” by amending sections 32 and 45 (MCL 24.232 and 24.245), as amended by 2018 PA 602. Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
    Excused
    Not recorded
    Measure id
    measure-5654
    Motion text
    Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
    Nays
    52
    Not voting
    Not recorded
    Result
    passed
    Sitting id
    sitting-420
    Vote date
    2023-06-28
    Vote id
    vote-2943
    Vote number
    260
    Yeas
    56