With all 110 seats in the Michigan House of Representatives up for election Nov. 5, about a dozen of the races will decide control of the chamber beginning in January. New term limits allow for a combined 12 years of service between the House and Senate, rather than the previous 14-year limit. If Democrats retain their 56-54 majority in the House, they will continue to control all levels of state government.
Several legislative session days are on the calendar for later this month and we anticipate a busy “lame duck”— the time period between the election and the end of the year. Please get to know your local candidates running for the state House of Representatives. It is crucially important to develop relationships now that ensure your voice will be heard on future issues that impact you and your business. See pages 2-3 of the September 2024 Karoub Report for a complete list of House races and a link to locate your district, check your voter status and more voting information.
Following the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this summer that reinstates the 2018 voter-initiated Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA), the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) has provided guidance on how the ruling affects businesses and workers. The ESTA and its provisions take effect Feb. 21, 2025. The Supreme Court also reinstated the accelerated adoption of a $12 minimum wage in Michigan, initiated by voters in 2018. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has requested clarification from the Supreme Court on the exact amount of the increase based on inflationary adjustments. Several legislators have indicated they intend to introduce legislation later this month aimed at keeping the state’s existing sick time and minimum wage laws in place.
On Aug. 30, the Michigan Supreme Court declined, by a vote of 5-2, to hear appeals in several lawsuits filed by businesses impacted by Michigan’s COVID-19 emergency orders. The plaintiffs in Gym 24/7 Fitness LLC v State of Michigan and Mount Clemens Recreational Bowl, Inc. v Director of the Department of Health & Human Services were seeking compensation of lost revenue incurred during the time gatherings were limited as mandated by the state government’s pandemic emergency orders. Previously, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled there was no “taking” of property in these cases because the property still “had value, even if no revenue or profit was generated during the closure” and “any lost value relative to the real and personal property was likely recovered as soon as the temporary prohibition was lifted.” That Court of Appeals’ decision remains in place.
For more about these and other legislative issues, click here for the September 2024 Karoub Report.