"Legal Battle Unveiled: Michigan Supreme Court to Deliberate 'Adopt-and-Amend' Maneuver

The Michigan Supreme Court is poised to delve into a pivotal legal battle concerning the contentious legislative tactic of 'adopt-and-amend.' This maneuver, under scrutiny, revolves around lawmakers exploiting a constitutional provision, allowing them to adopt ballot initiative language into law preemptively, removing the need for voter approval. Subsequently, the 'amend' step occurs after the election, permitting lawmakers to modify the newly established law before it takes effect.

The case under consideration traces back to 2018 when Michigan's then-Republican-controlled Legislature utilized the 'adopt-and-amend' strategy on two ballot measures aimed at increasing the state's minimum wage and establishing rates for paid sick time. However, just before the gubernatorial transition to Democratic control, the Legislature substantially altered both policies, sparking a legal challenge.

Advocacy groups Mothering Justice and Michigan One Fair Wage contend that the legislative alterations violate the Michigan Constitution, challenging a 2018 opinion by then-Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, that deemed the 'adopt-and-amend' tactic permissible. The legal dispute centers on the question of whether the Legislature's amendments, made within the same legislative session, undermine the people's constitutional right to initiate laws and vote on them.

The stakes are high, with the Michigan Court of Claims ruling in July 2022 that the 'adopt-and-amend' process is unconstitutional. Judge Douglas Shapiro, in his decision, emphasized that permitting otherwise would impede the people's power to initiate and vote on laws—an authority explicitly reserved for them by the Michigan Constitution. As the arguments unfold before the Michigan Supreme Court, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the future of legislative practices and the protection of citizens' constitutional rights in the state."

"Legal Limbo: Michigan's Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Laws Hang in the Balance

The fate of Michigan's minimum wage and sick leave accrual laws now rests in the hands of the state's Supreme Court. This pivotal moment comes after a lower court ruling, initially set to take effect in February, was overturned on appeal. The ruling aimed to restore the laws to their original form, providing workers with a significant pay raise and enhanced sick leave benefits.

The controversy centers around the 'adopt-and-amend' strategy employed by Michigan's Legislature in 2018, which led to the substantial modification of the minimum wage and sick leave policies just before a political transition. The appellate court panel, led by Judge Christopher Murray, rejected arguments related to the Legislature's intent, asserting that a law's constitutionality is not compromised by the manner in which it was passed.

As the state Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments, the implications are far-reaching. Under the current version of the minimum wage law, workers are slated to receive $10.33 per hour next year, with tipped workers earning $3.93 per hour. However, a restoration to the original form could elevate wages to over $13 per hour, irrespective of tipped status. Similarly, sick leave benefits could see a substantial increase, with employees earning at least one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

The upcoming decision holds significant consequences not only for Michigan's labor landscape but also for the broader legal debate surrounding the 'adopt-and-amend' tactic. Colin Jackson, a reporter for the Michigan Public Radio Network, will be closely following the developments as the state Supreme Court navigates this intricate legal terrain."

"In conclusion, Michigan's Supreme Court finds itself at the forefront of a consequential legal battle, grappling with the future of the state's minimum wage and sick leave laws. The appellate court's overturning of a lower court ruling, centered on the 'adopt-and-amend' legislative maneuver, has left these crucial policies hanging in the balance. The court's decision will not only impact the livelihoods of Michigan's workers but will also set a precedent for the controversial 'adopt-and-amend' strategy.

As the state Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments, the potential outcomes range from maintaining the current legislative amendments to reverting to the original, more favorable versions of the laws. The wage differentials and sick leave benefits at stake underscore the significance of this decision for Michigan's workforce.

Colin Jackson, a diligent reporter from the Michigan Public Radio Network, will closely monitor the proceedings and subsequent developments. The verdict from Michigan's highest court will undoubtedly echo beyond state borders, contributing to the ongoing discourse on legislative tactics and the protection of workers' rights."