The Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act petition has met the number of voter signatures so that the Michigan House of Representatives must take a serious look at this issue.
The full text of the legislation being proposed to the Michigan House of Representatives can be found here.
According to the Michigan Manual’s – 2009-2010 section on How an Issue Becomes a Ballot Propsosal, there is this language:
“A citizen or group of citizens may attempt to get a question on the ballot for one of three purposes: first, to enact a new law or new section or sections of law; second, to approve or reject a law already enacted; and third, to amend the constitution.
In order to exercise the right to initiate legislation (initiative), a citizen or group must secure, on petitions, the signatures of registered electors in an amount not less than 8 percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last gubernatorial election.
The Michigan Election Law, 1954 PA 116, as amended, establishes requirements and provisions that must be followed in order for a proposed piece of legislation to reach the ballot. These requirements include page and print size and other specifications, such as the full text of the proposed law to be printed on the petitions, and the manner in which they are to be circulated. Petitions to initiate legislation are filed with the Secretary of State and the Board of State Canvassers, which must then check validity and sufficiency of the petitions and have sufficient time to submit the measure to the legislature. The Elections Division of the Secretary of State recommends that petitions be filed at least 160 days prior to the general election to assure placement on the ballot if required. The legislature has 40 days from the time it receives the petition to enact or reject the proposed law or to propose a different measure on the same question. If not enacted, the original initiative proposal and any different measure passed by the legislature must go before the voters as a ballot proposal. Any substitute passed by the legislature would be a separate proposal. Regarding situations where legislative and citizen-originated measures, or any proposals, conflict, the constitution provides:
If two or more measures approved by the electors at the same election conflict, that receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.
If the initiated proposal is passed by a majority of the electorate voting on the question in the election, the new law takes effect ten days after the date of the official declaration of the vote. A new initiated law thus passed cannot be vetoed by the governor. It can only be amended or repealed by a subsequent vote of the electors or by a three-fourths vote of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature. (See Article 2, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963, as amended.)
The method of initiative used in Michigan is sometimes called the indirect initiative because the measure is first submitted to the legislature rather than directly to the voters.”
The issue of opting out of abortion insurance opt-out may be a new issue in the state of Michigan, but many other states have already taken action regarding the opt-out issue. (Have a look; this is is really useful information on how other states handle abortion funding.)
The remainder of this week will no doubt be most interesting on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives. Both sides are preparing for battle. Michigan could be the ninth state to put a stop to both private and public health care insurance companies to mandate abortion coverage.
One of three things can come out of this ballot initiative: the Michigan House of Representatives can vote to enact it; they can do nothing and let 40 days go by so it will go on the November 2014 statewide ballot; or it could be defeated.
Indeed, things are going to heat up in Lansing this week.
Author’s note: Special thanks to Derek Sova, Communications Director from the Office of Michigan Senator Tonya Schuitmaker. He sent me the Michigan Manual – 2009-2010 within minutes after I spoke with him on December 2, 2013. Mr. Sova and I have a good rapport, and I have confidence in him in that when I need information, he’s on it immediately when I call. Senator Schuitmaker and the state of Michigan should indeed be proud of people like him. This clearly demonstrates that there are indeed state employees who realize the importance of a taxpayer’s call.