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 3 related records on this page. A total was not computed.
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- This war on pop may be a sensible approach for its own bill but I do not support adding any sweetening agents to this bill as it will disrupt the important balance of flavor and effect that this bill will have if passed. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Senator Irwin’s second statement is as follows:
I am proud today to rise in support of Senate Bill No. 35. Food assistance is an essential front-line support for people and their families who are struggling economically. It’s good for Michigan farmers, it’s good for our economy, but most importantly it’s good for these families that have fallen on hard times. Now, even though SNAP is 100 percent federal benefit, it includes income requirements and it includes broad protections. Many years ago here in our state, this Legislature saw fit to add additional state-level restrictions to people who are seeking food assistance. What we added is what was commonly called the asset test, to make sure individuals, even if they’ve fallen on hard times, don’t have a decent car, or don’t have a few bucks in the bank to make sure they can pay their bills. This was a cruel policy, it was an unnecessary policy, and it was a policy that turned money away from Michigan and made it hard for people who were on the edge.
One of the things that happened a couple years ago when the current Governor took office is she changed the limits. I really applaud Governor Whitmer for revising the asset test limits, lifting them up to a level where it’s not affecting so many families, it’s not denying so many people benefits. It’s not pushing as much money away from our state. But this asset test was a bad policy in the first place for the reasons I’ve outlined and I certainly don’t want another Governor to come along in the future and adopt that cruel policy, that policy that says people who are struggling economically are struggling because they’re bad at life or because they’ve made some sort of mistake that we ought to now punish them for. I don’t approve of that. I think when people are hungry in this country, we should make sure that federal support that’s available to them flows into their pockets and flows into their grocery stores to put food on their table.
That’s why today I’m asking for your support to repeal this asset test, to take Michigan out of the process, and take away the responsibility for our department to then deny people benefits and instead just revert to the federal policy that allows low-income people to get that essential front-line support that they need and deserve.
Senator McBroom’s second statement is as follows:
Mr. President, I can echo a lot of the previous speaker’s sentiments and feelings about this, but I come at it from a slightly different experience too with the interviews I’ve had with numerous state employees who work at our DHHS offices who are incredibly frustrated by, in the past before these asset tests were in place, with the people they had to approve for benefits. I had several of them call and talk about how valuable the asset test is to making sure these benefits are given to people who are truly needy and not given to people who simply qualify. I encourage a “no” vote as well.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 32, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 390, entitled “An act to regulate the time and manner of payment of wages and fringe benefits to employees; to prescribe rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, and the powers and duties of the department of labor; to require keeping of records; to provide for settlement of disputes regarding wages and fringe benefits; to prohibit certain practices by employers; to prescribe penalties and remedies; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 8 (MCL 408.478).
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
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Vote date
- 2023-03-09
- Vote number
- 52
- Yeas
- 38
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- house
- Context text
- DeSana MacDonell Roth
Nays—4
Carra Friske Maddock 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.
Rep. Aiyash moved that Senate Bill No. 32 be placed on its immediate passage.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
Senate Bill No. 32, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 390, entitled “An act to regulate the time and manner of payment of wages and fringe benefits to employees; to prescribe rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, and the powers and duties of the department of labor; to require keeping of records; to provide for settlement of disputes regarding wages and fringe benefits; to prohibit certain practices by employers; to prescribe penalties and remedies; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 8 (MCL 408.478).
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
- Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
- Nays
- 4
- Not voting
- Not recorded
- Result
- passed
- Vote date
- 2023-05-18
- Vote number
- 118
- Yeas
- 103
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Elections and Ethics.
Senators Moss, McMorrow, Polehanki, McCann, Geiss, Shink and Brinks introduced
Senate Bill No. 374, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 658 and 661 (MCL 168.658 and 168.661), as amended by 2012 PA 270.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Elections and Ethics.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Messages from the House
Senate Bill No. 32, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 390, entitled “An act to regulate the time and manner of payment of wages and fringe benefits to employees; to prescribe rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, and the powers and duties of the department of labor; to require keeping of records; to provide for settlement of disputes regarding wages and fringe benefits; to prohibit certain practices by employers; to prescribe penalties and remedies; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 8 (MCL 408.478).
(This bill was returned from the House on Thursday, May 25 with a substitute (H-2) and immediate effect, and was laid over under the rules. See Senate Journal No. 51, p. 956.)
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 0
- Motion text
- The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- unknown
- Vote date
- 2023-06-06
- Vote number
- 322
- Yeas
- 38