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
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
The motion prevailed. Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows: I guess I really like the sound of an Upper Peninsula Department of Natural Resources. Maybe I should get a bill to do that—stay tuned. I want to just try to help members understand—this panel is simply an advisory panel. The panel has no authority, it does not get to make decisions or policy, it simply makes recommendations to the Natural Resources Commission and the department. The Natural Resources Commission is tasked with the management of game species in this state and is a panel made up of a majority of people from below the bridge. Interestingly enough, the law does actually mandate, though, that there be somebody from the Upper Peninsula on that panel because if it were purely just done by population, there probably wouldn’t be anybody from the Upper Peninsula. You can look at the Agriculture and Rural Development Commission, same thing; look at the Certificate of Need Commission, which demands representation from around the state, not from just one area of high population. This panel that this bill impacts is purely advisory and believe me, we have plenty of people opposed to wolf hunting in the Upper Peninsula to populate the seats on the panel. It’s not going to be a problem, we have people who support hunting, we have people who oppose it, we have almost 300,000 people, I guarantee you we can efficiently populate the panel. We have a very large and active section of tribal nations in the Upper Peninsula who can take a seat on this panel. I’m simply saying in this bill, Why should that panel currently have all of its membership but one from the Lower Peninsula where they don’t have the wolves? How would Belle Isle feel if the board that oversees that was all people from the Upper Peninsula? How would the people who care about elk—which aren’t in the U.P.—feel if their management was done by all people in the Upper Peninsula? How would the Pigeon River Country Advisory Council feel if we put all people from the Upper Peninsula on their panel? This is how the people of the Upper Peninsula currently feel about the wolf advisory panel. Right now, only one person is from the U.P., as if we had a shortage of tribal representation in the U.P., as if we had a shortage of animal rights folks in the U.P., as if we had a shortage of conservationists or pro-hunting people in the U.P. We don’t have a shortage of them. Why couldn’t we have those selected? To the good Senator from the 7th District’s fear about the current membership being changed, this panel’s job is supposed to be ending in just a few months. This bill isn’t going to be passed for several months yet; it’s got a long way to go, so it’s not going to impact the currently-selected panel, and if people were really worried about that, why didn’t somebody come to me with an amendment to say, Hey, let’s not make it change the current panel, let’s make it effective for future panels. Why didn’t somebody come with an amendment that says, You know, maybe out of the five, you guys should have three or four, but we still want—fine, but nobody’s even come up with an amendment. Nobody’s even come and suggested some sort of compromise. It’s just a lot of Sturm und Drang about how this is just going to somehow disenfranchise the people or create bad wildlife policy. What kind of patronizing thoughts are you having about people from the U.P.? That we’re incapable of providing some decent advice on this issue, that our animal rights representative or tribal representative are so in the tank for one side that they’ll falsely represent themselves on the panel? Come on. That’s not how it’s going to be. Members, I implore you, help out my district with this so we can participate in a more robust way on this issue that only impacts the residents I represent. The following bill was read a third time: Senate Bill No. 507, entitled A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 1a, 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 306a, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k (MCL 257.1a, 257.216, 257.226, 257.255, 257.301, 257.306, 257.306a, 257.309, 257.312f, 257.312k, 257.314, and 257.801k), sections 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k as amended by 2020 PA 304 and section 306a as amended by 2020 PA 376, and by adding section 205a. 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
Measure id
measure-9009
Motion text
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Nays
10
Not voting
0
Result
passed
Sitting id
sitting-1004
Vote date
2021-06-10
Vote id
vote-9664
Vote number
261
Yeas
25
Related record
as follows:
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
Chamber
house
Context text
Rep. Frederick moved that the bill be given immediate effect. The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor. Rep. Frederick moved that Senate Bill No. 507 be placed on its immediate passage. The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor. Senate Bill No. 507, entitled A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 1a, 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 306a, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k (MCL 257.1a, 257.216, 257.226, 257.255, 257.301, 257.306, 257.306a, 257.309, 257.312f, 257.312k, 257.314, and 257.801k), sections 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k as amended by 2020 PA 304 and section 306a as amended by 2020 PA 376, and by adding section 205a. 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-9009
Motion text
as follows:
Nays
14
Not voting
Not recorded
Result
unknown
Sitting id
sitting-821
Vote date
2021-06-30
Vote id
vote-8666
Vote number
413
Yeas
95
Related record
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
Chamber
senate
Context text
The Senate agreed to the full title. The bill was referred to the Secretary for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor. Senate Bill No. 507, entitled A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 1a, 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 306a, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k (MCL 257.1a, 257.216, 257.226, 257.255, 257.301, 257.306, 257.306a, 257.309, 257.312f, 257.312k, 257.314, and 257.801k), sections 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k as amended by 2020 PA 304 and section 306a as amended by 2020 PA 376, and by adding section 205a. The House of Representatives has substituted (H-5) the bill. The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-5), ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows: A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “An act to provide for the registration, titling, sale, transfer, and regulation of certain vehicles operated upon the public highways of this state or any other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles and distressed vehicles; to provide for the licensing of dealers; to provide for the examination, licensing, and control of operators and chauffeurs; to provide for the giving of proof of financial responsibility and security by owners and operators of vehicles; to provide for the imposition, levy, and collection of specific taxes on vehicles, and the levy and collection of sales and use taxes, license fees, and permit fees; to provide for the regulation and use of streets and highways; to create certain funds; to provide penalties and sanctions for a violation of this act; to provide for civil liability of manufacturers, the manufacturers of certain devices, the manufacturers of automated technology, upfitters, owners, and operators of vehicles and service of process on residents and nonresidents; to regulate the introduction and use of certain evidence; to regulate and certify the manufacturers of certain devices; to provide for approval and certification of installers and servicers of certain devices; to provide for the levy of certain assessments; to provide for the enforcement of this act; to provide for the creation of and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to impose liability upon the state or local agencies; to provide appropriations for certain purposes; to repeal all other acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act or contrary to this act; and to repeal certain parts of this act on a specific date,” by amending sections 1a, 216, 217, 226, 255, 301, 306, 306a, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, 801k, and 811 (MCL 257.1a, 257.216, 257.217, 257.226, 257.255, 257.301, 257.306, 257.306a, 257.309, 257.312f, 257.312k, 257.314, 257.801k, and 257.811), sections 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k as amended by 2020 PA 304, section 217 as amended by 2014 PA 290, section 306a as amended by 2020 PA 376, and section 811 as amended by 2006 PA 589, and by adding section 205a. Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day, Senator Lauwers moved that the rule be suspended. The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor. 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
1
Measure id
measure-9009
Motion text
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Nays
0
Not voting
0
Result
unknown
Sitting id
sitting-1011
Vote date
2021-07-15
Vote id
vote-9731
Vote number
328
Yeas
35

Related roll calls

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

as follows:

The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: