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
- 2024-05-01
- Chamber
- senate
- Result
- passed
- Yeas
- 24
- Nays
- 14
- Excused
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Related measure
- measure-3676
- Related sitting
- sitting-687
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
- Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows: Similar to my colleague, I’d like to hearken back when we included prevailing wage in our laws we passed in the fall for our clean energy projects. Part of the reasoning behind that was because we understand when we do work using trained, well-paid workers, it’s cheaper than doing the same work twice with untrained, poorly-paid workers. I would contend that actually by allowing our agency to enforce the laws we passed in the fall, we are actually holding down the cost of our transition by making sure we’re doing that work most efficiently and with well-trained workers. Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows: Mr. President, I’d like to address the idea that somehow the characterization that some of what is established through prevailing wage programs is not artificial as we heard someone claim just a little bit ago. The fact is that in many areas of the state, such as the Upper Peninsula, the wages that are established are entirely artificially established wages that are not representative of the prevailing wage in that community at all. Due to the way we have structured our prevailing wage law in this state, they are indeed not the actual prevailing wages for that community but are taken from communities ten hours away—nearly 500 miles away. They don’t compare to the wages that are paid on other jobs locally, even union labor jobs. We have created a system that does not do what it’s supposed to do, and when we voted on prevailing wage months ago, I spoke to it then—about the opportunities we had to make a better program that actually represented that and provided the important protections that prevailing wage has been created to do, the important protections it’s provided to create safer projects for our state to invest in, and safer conditions. I’m not opposed to the idea of prevailing wage. However, the way that the program is structured is not fully vetted, it’s not fully matured to deliver what it promises, and that’s why I believe we should support Senator Albert’s amendment. Senator Albert’s second statement is as follows: Today this legislation creates a new bureaucracy that will take time and added cost for businesses seeking to participate in state-funded projects or wind and solar energy projects. I guess it’s important to make note that this is not just applying to the wind and solar projects—this is for all prevailing wage projects, this provision. It creates a state project registration mandate for contractors on all state-financed projects and for contractors on these new wind and solar projects. As outlined in the bill, the registration would be valid for only one year at which point it would need to be renewed. This amendment would ease the registration requirement to once every ten years to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. Thank you, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The following bill was read a third time: House Bill No. 4331, entitled A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending section 2227 (MCL 500.2227), as amended by 2014 PA 509. 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
- Measure id
- measure-3676
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 14
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Sitting id
- sitting-687
- Vote date
- 2024-05-01
- Vote id
- vote-7624
- Vote number
- 106
- 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-7624.
/api/v1/votes/vote-7624