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
- 2025-04-17
- Chamber
- senate
- Result
- passed
- Yeas
- 36
- Nays
- 0
- Excused
- 1
- Not voting
- 0
- Related measure
- measure-2316
- Related sitting
- sitting-98
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
- In The Chair: Moss The Senate agreed to the title of the bill. Protests Senators Runestad , Bellino and Theis, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 129. Senator Runestad’s statement, in which Senators Bellino and Theis concurred, is as follows: Across the state of Michigan, employees have to have a note when they are off work for a period of time. They may be required to bring in a doctor’s note. This is not unusual. In a case where somebody’s appointed to a commission in Michigan, the whole purpose of our Open Meetings Act is to ensure the public has the ability to communicate with these people, to confront them, to ask questions. That’s the purpose. This bill is written sloppily, as seems like all the Democratic bills are, is allowing a person to just simply say, I have some kind of disability and thus can go remote and not have to face the public. The one that comes to mind most frequently to me, the one I hear the biggest complaint about, is the Michigan Public Service Commission. These people should be required to face the public and answer questions. The way this bill is written is basically that they can simply, anyone, on any commission, anywhere, can make any kind of claim at all and now go around the Open Meetings Act. I don’t understand why the Democratic policies will not make it clear that these things we can all agree on, putting some provisions in here to make sure a person actually does have a condition that would prohibit them from showing up, is included in the bill, but once again, that is not the case. That’s why I voted “no.” The following bill was read a third time: Senate Bill No. 93, entitled A bill to amend 2000 PA 92, entitled “Food law,” by amending section 4105 (MCL 289.4105), as amended by 2016 PA 188. 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-2316
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Sitting id
- sitting-98
- Vote date
- 2025-04-17
- Vote id
- vote-2077
- Vote number
- 49
- Yeas
- 36
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-2077.
/api/v1/votes/vote-2077