Script-free record · Release 2026-07-28.3
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Core facts and links below come from the same immutable public release as the enhanced record page.
vote
Recorded floor vote
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Vote date
- 2020-12-18
- Chamber
- senate
- Result
- passed
- Yeas
- 24
- Nays
- 13
- Excused
- 1
- Not voting
- 0
- Related measure
- measure-11552
- Related sitting
- sitting-1566
Official totals and named choices remain separate evidence. A named choice supports that vote only and does not establish continuous presence.
Inspect all published fields
- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- The Senate agreed to the title of the bill. Protests Senators Barrett and Hollier, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4910. Senator Barrett moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Barrett’s statement, in which Senator Hollier concurred, is as follows: I respect the work that was put into this and the stakeholders that have come forward to try and resolve a complicated issue of people claiming that certain animals should be protected in their residence when they rent from an apartment or a home. I put a lot of work into service animal legislation when I first was elected to the Legislature back in the House of Representatives, and I feel strongly that, in law today already, there is a clear divide between what is protected as a service animal under the Americans with Disabilities Act and also through Michigan law, and then other animals that people may claim provide them a benefit or some type of support. I think all of us who have owned pets throughout our lives could make the very valid case that our animals provide us a level of emotional support. And to me, by creating a new class of animals that has not been acknowledged under law to this point, we are creating more murkiness in this particular area where I feel the appropriate response is to hold the line on true service animals that are already defined and articulated and protected in law in various different areas, versus creating a new standard and a new class of animals that hasn’t existed in law before. I fear that this would get abused and will be a new can of worms that is opened up that could create new challenges down the road. The following bill was read a third time: House Bill No. 4911, entitled A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending sections 5714 and 5775 (MCL 600.5714 and 600.5775), section 5714 as amended by 2014 PA 223 and section 5775 as added by 1988 PA 336. 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-11552
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 13
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Sitting id
- sitting-1566
- Vote date
- 2020-12-18
- Vote id
- vote-12503
- Vote number
- 595
- Yeas
- 24
Follow the evidence
Cite this record
Michigan Legislative Activity and Evidence Dataset, release 2026-07-28.3, “The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:,” /votes/vote-12503.
/api/v1/votes/vote-12503