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
- 2021-05-05
- Chamber
- senate
- Result
- passed
- Yeas
- 35
- Nays
- 1
- Excused
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Related measure
- measure-8550
- Related sitting
- sitting-989
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
- Protests Senators Moss, Polehanki, McMorrow, Santana, Bayer, Brinks, Bullock, Geiss, Chang, Alexander and Wojno, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 353 and 354. Senator Moss moved that the statement he made during the discussion of Senate Bill No. 353 be printed as his reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Moss’ statement, in which Senators Polehanki, McMorrow, Santana, Bayer, Brinks, Bullock, Geiss, Chang, Alexander and Wojno concurred, is as follows: Senate Bill No. 353 and its accompanying bill, Senate Bill No. 354, would actually prohibit local health departments or state departments from charging or collecting certain fees for the licensing year running from May 1, 2021 until April 30, 2022 and waives certain fees for food establishments and water bottlers that they pay for that licensing year. And I get it. It’s providing some relief for those who weren’t able to fully utilize the services that their 2020 fees paid for during the pandemic. But as originally introduced, it’s estimated that this bill would reduce revenue to the state by approximately $5 million, and it’s an indeterminate loss of how much revenue would be lost by the local public health departments and as a result, this bill is opposed by the department, by the Michigan Association of Counties, and by the Michigan Association of Local Public Health. This money is there and is part of the budget negotiation process. This money could be provided to make up for these losses to our health departments during the pandemic. So until that is guaranteed by the majority that these holes are going to be filled, I cannot support this bill. The following bill was read a third time: Senate Bill No. 48, entitled A bill to amend 2001 PA 142, entitled “Michigan memorial highway act,” (MCL 250.1001 to 250.2091) by adding section 110. 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-8550
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 1
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Sitting id
- sitting-989
- Vote date
- 2021-05-05
- Vote id
- vote-9521
- Vote number
- 118
- Yeas
- 35
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-9521.
/api/v1/votes/vote-9521