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 2 related records on this page. A total was not computed.
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- house
- Context text
- the federal government.”
Rep. Stone, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the
following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
While I appreciate and fully heartedly support the federally funding of the GI Bill, this is a federal initiative
that is federally funded and belongs in Congress. I’m so glad that Michigan service members can benefit
training programs, exams, and licensure utilizing the funding of the GI Bill.”
House Bill No. 4994, entitled
A bill to allow for the charitable donation of unclaimed shoes held by persons engaged in the business of
shoe repair.
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
- 3
- Not voting
- Not recorded
- Result
- unknown
- Vote date
- 2022-02-01
- Vote number
- 31
- Yeas
- 102
Related record
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- 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:
- Excused
- 1
- 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
- 2022-03-23
- Vote number
- 101
- Yeas
- 37