Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says divided government in Lansing should not stop Democrats and Republicans from finding ways to get things done. The governor delivered her seventh State of the State address on Wednesday.

This was Whitmer’s first State of the State address to the Legislature since Republicans took control of the state House this year and ended the Democrats’ trifecta control over the Capitol. Democrats remain in control of the Senate, but much of Whitmer’s 52-minute speech seemed aimed at winning over the opposition.

“Our people are not as divided as our politics,” Whitmer said. “I truly believe that.”

Whitmer’s policy priorities — many carried over from earlier addresses — include affordable housing, closing a higher education gap where young men in Michigan are less likely than women to pursue advanced degrees or training, and, of course, finalizing a still-elusive deal on long-term funding for roads. But her overall message was Michigan needs a surge of confidence and kindness.

“And now, in a divisive national moment, where America needs a new way forward, Michigan can lead. Because at our best, we are strong and kind, and kindness is strength,” she said.

She said Michigan has made a lot of progress in the past six years, but an image makeover is in order.

“Because if we’re being honest, our brand has taken a beating over the past few decades,” Whitmer said. “After the Great Recession, the Flint water crisis, and disinvestment in roads and schools and health care, people on the margins were suffering in Michigan.”

Whitmer did not mention her proposal to use a tax on marijuana products to help fund roads, but she did renew her call for a tax on vaping products to both raise revenue and make vaping less attractive to younger consumers. She told Republicans that the options for adequate road funding must include new revenue if the state is going to avoid cuts to schools, public safety or other critical programs.

But Republicans rejected any discussion of revenue other than redirecting existing funds. Whitmer and GOP leaders appear to agree that all taxes collected at the gas pump should go only to roads. But Republican House Speaker Matt Hall says he does not see a need for any new taxes. He’s also called for ending business-attraction subsidies, which he says would free up funds for roads and infrastructure.

“You know, I want to show her the numbers, to show her we can do this without raising taxes and my hope is just because Governor Whitmer is a Democrat doesn’t mean she has to raise taxes,” said Hall.

But Hall’s Democratic counterpart, House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, said he heard a lot that people could agree would be good for the state.

“Lowering costs, improving our economy to get jobs going, you know, just delivering results, child care, housing, paying off debt. I think these are all great things that we should, that should be above party lines,” Puri said.

Whitmer treaded lightly on criticizing President Donald Trump in her speech, and said she is looking to work with the Republican administration to keep military installations in Michigan. But she also warned that increasing tariffs and a trade war with Canada would hit Michigan’s manufacturing economy hard.

A group of seven conservative GOP legislators put their names on a non-binding resolution Tuesday calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the landmark decision that struck down same-sex marriage bans — including Michigan’s dormant amendment.

Because the 2004 voter-approved amendment remains in the Constitution, it could be revived if the U.S. Supreme Court were to revisit and reverse the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, that included the Michigan case filed by plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jane Rowse, two nurses who wanted to jointly adopt special needs children.

In response to advance word of the resolution, protesters demonstrated in front of the Capitol and crowded the halls of the Anderson House Office Building, where Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford) was the lead (and, as it turned out only) speaker. Other lawmakers either dropped their names from the resolutions or were no-shows at the press conference.

Schriver’s words took an apocalyptic turn as he decried the reversal of Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban.

“Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court redefined the sacred institution of marriage,” he said. “This blunder compromised the mother-father-child family unit.”

Conservative members of the court have signaled interest in another hearing on same-sex marriage in a similar fashion to its reconsideration of the Roe v. Wade ruling that determined abortion rights were constitutionally protected.

Justice Samuel Alito last year renewed his criticism of the same-sex marriage decision. Alito along with Justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas dissented in the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

State Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield), a gay man who sponsored the bill to add LGBTQ protections to Michigan’s main civil rights law, crashed the news conference to offer a rebuttal.

“This was just as buffoonish as I expected it to be,” he said. “I think that this has fallen flat with people in the State of Michigan. I think that people respect their LGBTQ neighbors, their LGBTQ family members. These marriages have been the law of the land for 10 years. They contribute to family security. They contribute to economic security.”

Schriver didn’t get much support from his own caucus either. Not only did his co-sponsors drop out, House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township), on short notice, convened his own news conference to compete with Schriver’s event. Hall assigned the bill to the House Government Operations Committee, which often serves as a graveyard for disfavored legislation, and messaged that it would remain parked there.

Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor) said he would eventually like to see the question settled by formally repealing dormant same-sex marriage ban in Michigan, which would require voter approval to amend the Michigan Constitution.

“I’m not sure if the moment’s here yet or not,” he told the Michigan Public Radio Network, “but I think we’re getting to that moment where we’re ready, where we have to, as we inch closer and closer to the potential of the Supreme Court rolling back our right to marriage equality.”

Michigan Democrats have selected veteran political figure Curtis Hertel Jr. to serve as their new party chair headed into a very consequential election cycle next year.

Hertel was approved by acclamation after the only other contender dropped out. Hertel said he wants the Michigan Democratic Party to be more aggressive in reaching out to people and it needs to more engaged in races up and down the ballot.

“I want to win the governor’s race and we’re certainly going to invest a lot of time there,” he said, “but winning the governor without winning the House and the Senate is really just [being] a goalie. I want to go on offense and actually get things done for people.”

Hertel replaces Lavora Barnes, who led the party since 2019. She is the first Black Michigan party chair. She chose not to seek another term following the 2024 election.

Hertel is a former county official, state senator and advisor to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Democrats are still smarting from losing control of the state House to Republicans in the 2024 election when President Donald Trump also won Michigan.

There is a lot at stake in the coming election cycle with open races for governor, attorney general, secretary of state and a U.S. Senate seat. Also, control of the state House and Senate will be at stake.

Hertel said restoring the Democrats’ trifecta control of the governor’s office, the House and the Senate is a top priority.

Hertel told the convention that Democrats need to work in between elections to connect with voters and to offer progressive solutions to housing, employment and economic challenges, and stand up for reproductive freedom and civil rights.

“If we are not that party, that party will not exist in this country,” he said.

There was low-simmering tensions over differences within the party over Gaza and bills signed Friday by Whitmer that pulled back increases in the state minimum wage and earned sick time. The adoption of those laws outraged many progressives and union members, especially because some Democrats in the Legislature voted for the measures. The alternative would have been to allow the petition-initiated laws to take effect under a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court.  

Delegate Danielle Atkinson was a leader of the earned sick leave campaign. She said Whitmer and Democrats who voted to dilute the initiatives are ignoring the Democratic Party base. She said the convention was an opportunity to confront and connect with lawmakers.

“And … just asking the question and hoping that they understand their base is not with them on the vote that they just took,” she said, “and so if there is a next vote, if there’s a next issue, they turn to community and ask them whether or not they are supportive.”

Next year, Democratic and Republican voters will choose gubernatorial candidates in party primaries. The nominees for lieutenant governor, attorney general and secretary of state will be chosen by convention delegates.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation on Friday to preserve Michigan’s lower minimum wage for tipped workers and to modify the law that requires most employers to provide paid sick leave.

Subscribe to the Detroit Evening Report on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

The governor signed the bills just hours after they were sent to her by the Legislature.

In a statement, Whitmer said the new laws are the product of bipartisan compromises that still provide better wages and guaranteed sick leave.

The state minimum wage is now $12.48 — up from $10.56. The minimum wage for tipped workers is $5.09. Employers are expected to make up the difference if salary and tips don’t meet the minimum wage.

Small businesses with fewer than 10 employees must allow workers to accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick leave. People who work for larger employers can bank up to 72 hours of sick time a year.

These new laws preempt petition initiatives that would have required more generous wage and sick leave policies. The petition campaigns called the new laws a betrayal of their efforts to use the initiative process to improve minimum wage and sick leave standards.

Groups say they’re looking at options, including legal action, new petition initiative campaigns, or a referendum to challenge the laws on the ballot.

—Reporting by Rick Pluta, Michigan Public Radio Network

Other headlines for Friday, Feb. 21, 2025:

• Cuts to the U.S. Department of Education could affect Michigan if President Donald Trump shuts down the agency, local education leaders say.
• The 9th annual African American Family Book Expo is taking place from noon to 5 p.m. Feb. 22 at the Ernest T Ford Field House in Highland Park.
• The Henry Ford Museum is presenting a new exhibit this Saturday in honor of Black History Month titled “We Shall Overcome: The 60th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act,” featuring artifacts that explore the rich story of what it took to establish voting rights for African Americans.

Do you have a community story we should tell? Let us know in an email at detroiteveningreport@wdet.org.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy’s office is asking the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a ruling that struck down the state’s terroristic threats law. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled last week that the law is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled the law does not specifically require prosecutors to prove a statement or communication was intentionally threatening or reckless.

Special Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Timothy Baughman wrote the Court of Appeals decision missed the mark because even if that were the case, there are remedies that are not so broad as throwing out the entire law.

Baughman wrote “the Court ignores completely its obligation to construe the statute as constitutional unless the attacking party shows that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid.”

Defendant Michael Kvasnicka was charged with making a threat of terrorism and using a computer to commit a crime based on a social media message to a girl that mentioned shooting up her school. The appeals court opinion said the law was vague enough to allow jokes or hyperbole to be swept into its net.

The prosecutor not only asked the Supreme Court to take the case, but to put a hold on the appeals court ruling and to put the case on a fast track because a decision could affect criminal prosecutions across Michigan that are underway right now.

Arguments in a legal challenge to abortion restrictions that remain on the books in Michigan opened Thursday before a Michigan Court of Claims judge. The laws are currently blocked by a preliminary ruling from Judge Sima Patel.

Patel is being asked to determine that “informed consent” and 24-hour waiting period laws violate the 2022 voter-approved Michigan Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment.

The Legislature and Governor Gretchen Whitmer repealed many abortion restrictions after Democrats were swept into power in the 2022 elections. But a handful of restrictive abortion laws remain on the books. The targets of this challenge are laws that, absent the judicial hold on enforcement, would require patients to wait 24 hours to get an abortion after signing a written consent form and to view images of fetuses at different gestational stages.

The challenge was filed by Northland Family Planning Centers, which operates three clinics. Executive Director Renee Chelian was the first witness called to the stand. She said the laws are coercive and especially hard on patients in crisis.

“It’s biased. It’s unnecessary. It burdens the patient,” she said. “There’s no reason for it.”

She said medical ethics and standards of care already address sharing relevant information with patients, while the laws in question make it harder for patients and are downright cruel to pregnant people facing tragic circumstances.

“That fetal anomaly patient – do you think she wants information about parenting or prenatal care or any other alternatives?” she said. “No. She wants to have that baby and she can’t.”

The state attorney defending the laws has yet to argue his side of the case, but appeared to be laying the groundwork for arguing the standards in the laws being challenged are very similar to accepted professional standards.  

The trial is expected to continue through the end of next week.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer called on the Michigan Legislature to reach a bipartisan deal this week on new state minimum wage and earned sick leave laws or temporarily extend the status quo into the summer.          

Whitmer is on an overseas trade trip, but her office said Wednesday that the Democratic governor had spoken with House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids). Whitmer Press Secretary Stacey LaRouche said she asked the legislative leaders to wrap up an agreement or provide some short-term certainty for workers and employers.

“If they are unable to reach an agreement by this week, she also encouraged them to pass this short-term extension through July 1st,” she told Michigan Public Radio. “This would create more space for the House and the Senate to continue negotiations while we work on the budget,” LaRouche said.

 A legislative solution would preempt an order from the Michigan Supreme Court, which held a Republican-controlled Legislature acted unconstitutionally in 2018 to thwart minimum wage and sick leave petition initiatives. The goal of the court order was to bring wage and paid leave standards as close as possible to the timeline set in the public initiatives before the Legislature’s illegal action.

 LaRouche said the Michigan Supreme Court made the right call.

“Governor Whitmer has long opposed the unconstitutional tactic Republicans used to undercut working families and discourage companies from providing sick leave to employees,” she said, but added the governor shares concerns by employers and some workers that implementing the paid leave policy would be very complicated. Restaurants and some workers say the new minimum wage law would add to payroll expenses, discourage tipping and possibly lead to layoffs.

The Republican-led House and Democrat-controlled Senate are working on bills with an eye toward the Feb. 21 deadline, when the Supreme Court decision will take effect.

On Wednesday, the Senate Regulatory Reform Committee continued to hear testimony on a Democrat-backed bill to change the state’s minimum wage law.

That Senate proposal would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2027, ahead of the planned schedule. But it would also maintain a lower minimum wage for tipped workers, like bartenders and servers, than the law upheld by the Supreme Court.

Restaurant industry groups have been pressuring lawmakers to keep the lower minimum wage for tipped workers, arguing tips are already supposed to make up the difference.

Lu Hayoz is among the restaurant owners who say that would be devastating for them. Hayoz said she’s been cautioning customers that higher menu prices may be on the way.

“Just trying to prepare them for the costs that might be coming their way. They think that they are doing us a favor that they’re in favor for, like, you girls work so hard, you know, you do. You deserve a big raise, you know, until you have to tell them this cost has to come from somewhere,” Hayoz said.

But One Fair Wage, the group behind the minimum wage law that the Supreme Court upheld, argues any changes before it takes effect would be unacceptable.

 One Fair Wage President Saru Jayaraman said her group would challenge any changes lawmakers make by launching a referendum campaign.

“It was restaurant workers from the very beginning collecting those signatures… For them now to be the topic of conversation in that building that they get left out [of] when they were the ones that initiated it— it’s not just heartbreaking, it’s not just wrong— it’s so infuriating,” Jayaraman told reporters at a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

Now, advocates on both sides of the issue are looking to see whether Senate Democrats hold firm on minimum wage and paid leave, or make some adjustments.

Wednesday’s Senate Regulatory Reform committee pushed the Senate’s sick leave proposal out to the full Senate. The minimum wage proposal is scheduled for another day of committee testimony on Thursday.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle said they hope a deal can be reached without waiting until July.

“We have zero interest in an extension,” said a House Republican source. “A deal is on the table now.”

Senator Kevin Hertel (D-St. Clair Shores), who sponsored the minimum wage bill, concurred with that sentiment.

“I think the point here is to make sure that everybody is focused on getting to that deal and not playing politics on the process of getting there,” Hertel said.

But Senator Roger Hauck (R-Mount Pleasant), who sits on the regulatory reform committee, said he doubts Democrats have the votes lined up.

“It’s in their court,” Hauck told reporters. “And they, from what I understand, they can’t even get the votes they need to get it out.” 

The final legal briefs were filed Tuesday in a lawsuit that pits state Senate Democrats against House Republicans for failing to send bills adopted by both chambers to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The arguments will now be reviewed by a Michigan Court of Claims judge.

The brief filed on behalf of Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) accused House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.) and Republicans of “a brazen attempt to place themselves above the law — indeed, above the State Constitution” by sitting on nine bills adopted at the end of the last session.

The policies at stake include exempting public assistance payments from debt collection, public employee pensions and health benefits, and allowing a voter-approved regional millage for Detroit museums.

The legal and constitutional issue is whether there’s a loophole that could allow a chamber to indefinitely hold onto bills even after they’ve been passed by the House and the Senate. Senate Democrats say the Michigan Constitution is clear that all bills adopted by both chambers must go to the governor and that refusing to forward the bills is effectively a veto, which is a power exclusively exercised by the governor.

“The constitution is clear: Every bill passed by the Legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law,” said Brinks in a statement. “And there is no shortage of precedent: For at least 150 years, Michigan governors have signed bills after the adjournment of the legislative session at which they were passed.”

Brinks was referring to the House Republican argument that one session of the Michigan Legislature cannot bind a future legislature.

“If there is any obligation at all to present a bill to the governor, that obligation must belong to the legislature that passed the bill — not a subsequent and wholly distinct legislative body, which cannot be legally bound by its predecessor,” reads the House Republican argument filed earlier this week.

Hall has said there is no controversy because the House is holding the bills to review for possible technical flaws, although there would be no way to fix any problems without new legislation in this new term.

The House Republicans also argue that Hall cannot be sued for actions taken in his role as speaker and that this is an internal controversy within the legislative branch and the judiciary courts should stay out of it.

Under the Michigan Constitution, the governor has 14 days to sign or veto a bill once it is delivered to her desk. But there is no specific deadline for the Legislature to send the bill once it is adopted.

Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel is expected to rule soon to clear the way for appeals. She could order oral arguments before making a decision.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer released a road-and-transportation funding proposal Monday that includes a new tax on marijuana products, more revenue from a business tax aimed at big-tech companies, and unspecified budget cuts.

The Democratic governor says it’s a long-term plan to raise $3 billion annually for roads, bridges and public transit.

“Today, I’m excited to introduce my brand-new plan that provides a long-term, sustainable solution to fix our roads so we can help more Michiganders stay safe on the road, save money, and get where they’re going faster,” said Whitmer in a statement released by her office. “My plan is fiscally responsible and balanced, with both new revenue and cuts so we can lower costs for families.”

The proposal is not specific on many details, but Whitmer aides say the goal is to set some broad outlines to bring to the bargaining table as Republicans take aim at state spending in general and specifically at taxpayer-funded business incentives. House Republicans have rolled out a competing transportation proposal.

“Michigan families expect results — that’s why our plan focuses on real solutions, including prioritizing funding roads over funding corporate earmarks, making the most out of our current budget instead of raising new taxes, and fixing local roads first,” Hall said in a statement. “Roads and infrastructure are essential, and we must get this right.”

There are a couple of commonalties in the Whitmer and GOP plans — they seem to agree that the revenue target is an additional $3 billion annually for roads and infrastructure. They also seem to agree that the 6% Michigan sales taxes on fuel purchases should go to infrastructure.

“We’re excited that there actually is a plan,” said Rob Coppersmith with the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, a construction industry organization. “So, we are excited that the issue is even being talked about and discussed and that people understand the importance of properly funding our infrastructure.”

Whitmer aides say Michigan’s current road funding design does not match the realities of modern economics, including marketing and retail services that have moved online.

“That’s why the governor introduced this plan today for a sustainable road funding solution that reflects our current needs, lowers costs for commuters and makes the companies that use the roads the most pay their fair share,” said Zachary Kolodin, Whitmer’s Chief Infrastructure Officer. “This plan will make big-tech industries like Amazon or X or Tik-Tok led by the nation’s wealthiest individuals pay their fair share to do business in Michigan and use Michigan’s roadways.”

While Republicans are not sold on the plan, some GOP lawmakers say they see room to bargain.

“One part of the plan is kind of tax neutral,” said Rep. Donni Steele (R-Orion), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Local Transportation. “That one part I think we can agree on. But the raising of the taxes is something that I think we won’t agree on. I think there’s enough room in the budget to fund the roads without raising taxes.”

A judge spent nearly four hours Monday listening and sorting through arguments on the future of the state’s effort to shut down a 4.5-mile segment of an Enbridge petroleum pipeline that runs along the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac.

Ingham County Circuit Judge James Jamo’s first decision is whether it is his job to make a decision. If the answer is yes, then Jamo will decide whether the state has the authority to revoke an easement that allows Enbridge to operate Line 5 on the bottom of the Great Lakes.

The case in Ingham County is a jumble of state and federal lawsuits over the continued operation of the pipeline in the environmentally sensitive juncture of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, even as Enbridge moves ahead with plans to encase it in a tunnel under the lakebed.  

“This is about public safety under the common law public trust doctrine,” argued Assistant Attorney General Dan Bock during the online arguments before Ingham County Circuit Judge James Jamo.

This six-year-long challenge is part of the hodgepodge of legal actions surrounding Line 5 and Enbridge’s efforts to allay concerns with a project to encase the line in a concrete tunnel.

Enbridge has been trying to move the arguments to federal courts, where its chances are arguably better than state courts presided over by judges selected by Michigan voters.

“Enbridge has deliberately caused years of delay through procedural tactics, attempting to block Michigan courts from deciding a critical issue that directly impacts its residents,” Nessel said in a statement released by her office following the arguments.

But Enbridge argues the case has national and international implications that are bigger than one state’s parochial interests. Enbridge runs a sweeping network of energy pipelines. Line 5 runs through Michigan and Wisconsin on the U.S. side of an international border and into Ontario and Quebec on the Canadian side. Portions of the pipeline go through tribal lands.

“We believe these are federal issues that take precedence, and this has become really an international controversy at this point,” said Enbridge spokesman Ryan Duffy. Enbridge’s attorney also argued the state has no standing since it is only arguing prospective future harm.

Enbridge’s pipeline network could be part of the solution to resolve moving petroleum products without using a line that in a worst-case scenario would spill hundreds of thousands of gallons of petroleum product into the Great Lakes, said Andrew Buchsbaum, an attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and the Great Lakes Business Network.

But, he said, first the court would have to agree the state has shown the potential for an environmental catastrophe is enough to establish standing to sue.

“Once a court makes that finding, then procedurally, the next phase of the case is, what’s the remedy?” said Buchsbaum. “That is, is it an immediate shutdown? Is it a shutdown over time to allow Enbridge to try to find some other way of rerouting the oil and gas around the straits or around Michigan?”

Judge Jamo said he will issue a written opinion soon, but did not give a specific timeline. Whatever Jamo decides can be appealed to a higher court.

Business leaders and economists are on the lookout for how President Donald Trump’s plans will affect the state, especially the manufacturing sector.

The Detroit Economic Club heard Tuesday from experts who help mold the state’s economic plans. A lot of their attention is focused on the Trump administration’s trade policies, especially tariffs. There’s concern that higher duties on goods and raw materials could harm manufacturing.

That is certainly a possibility, said State Treasurer Rachel Eubanks, but a lot will depend on how tariffs are structured.

“The industry that we have here in Michigan is very complicated,” she said. “You know, we’ve got a very complicated supply chain network. We know that there’s various implications that will occur.”

Although Trump had pledged during the campaign that he would enact tariffs on his first day in office, Eubanks said the Trump administration does not appear to be moving quickly on actually imposing duties on trade partners. The panel said a lot of the new president’s public statements appear designed to set negotiating positions.

University of Michigan economist Gabriel Ehrlich said unemployment in Michigan is expected to remain very low at between 3% and 4%. But he also expects the job market to cool off.

“Churn in the labor market has slowed down quite a bit, so people are staying in their jobs,” he said. “You know, two years ago, there was a ton of turnover, tons of job vacancies. People were moving around. That was the way to get raises. Now you’re seeing people look at their jobs and saying, ‘huh, maybe I should hang onto that.’”

Michigan Economic Development Corporation CEO Quentin Messer said he is optimistic.

“The underlying fundamentals are sound,” he said. “I think you have new leadership at the federal level that will shake up things and create new opportunities and I think our companies, our workforce, are prepared and built for whatever comes.”

The group also said they are watching how immigration policy develops, since most of the state’s population growth in recent years is due to migration from other countries.

Trump signed immigration orders Tuesday to reduce the number of people allowed to enter the U.S. and to beef up armed security at the border. Michigan also shares international borders with Canada.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer congratulated President Donald Trump on his inauguration Monday, saying that she wants to work on “shared priorities” with the President as well as Republicans in the Legislature.

Whitmer’s office released the statement after Trump took the oath of office and as he was delivering his inaugural address.

In the speech, Trump thanked auto workers and pledged to roll back EPA vehicle emissions standards, which he labeled “the EV mandate,” although the emissions rules do not require consumers to purchase any particular types of vehicles. Trump said new energy regulations would help save the auto industry and workers’ jobs.

Whitmer has expressed concern about how Trump’s tariff proposals could affect the state’s manufacturing sector.

“Here in Michigan, we are focused on creating good-paying, local jobs, fixing the damn roads, fighting for our advanced manufacturing industries including autos, defense, maritime, and aerospace, and working with our partners in Canada to keep costs low for working families and small businesses,” she said in Monday’s statement.

Whitmer has tempered her criticism of Trump since the election. She was a top advocate for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. Trump won Michigan last year after losing the battleground state in 2020.

Whitmer will share more on her priorities next month in her State of the State address. Whitmer said she delayed delivering the speech to the Legislature this month in order to avoid conflicting with the presidential inauguration.

It is no surprise Michigan Republicans were pleased with Trump’s early actions and inauguration.

“Today is a monumental day in American history and the beginning of a much stronger and successful time for our nation,” said House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.) in an e-mailed statement. “The American people have spoken asking for real change, and now President Trump is taking bold, decisive action to immediately deliver on his promises to secure our borders, assert American energy dominance, and bolster Michigan’s auto industry.” 

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced Friday that her second-to-last State of the State address to the public and a joint session of the Legislature will take place on Feb. 26.

In a statement released by her office, Whitmer said the address will focus on jobs, lowering costs and more investments in education.

“Michigan is a state on the move as we continue working together to create good-paying jobs, fix our roads, and invest in our students and schools,” Whitmer said. “I look forward to delivering my 2025 State of the State Address where I will lay out my plan to build on our years of strong, bipartisan progress and strategic, fiscally responsible leadership.”

This will be her first State of the State since Republicans won control of the Michigan House in last year’s elections. Democrats remain in control of the Senate.

As usual, the speech will take place at the state Capitol in the House chamber.

Republican House Speaker Matt Hall formally approved the request to use the chamber in a letter that also said he’s looking forward to hearing her plan for road funding.

“We delivered a detailed roads plan to you earlier today that would increase funding by more than $3 billion dollars and do it without raising taxes by one dime,” he wrote. “Perhaps your address on February 26 will be the right time to share the details of your plan to solve our state’s long-time roads and infrastructure crisis.”

Whitmer said earlier this week that the address will be later than usual out of deference for the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump in Washington D.C. and lawmakers who want to attend.

A Republican-led committee opened hearings Tuesday on bills that would scale back parts of initiatives to increase the state minimum wage and guarantee workers paid sick leave. The goal is to send bills to the House floor as soon as this week.

The special committee is focused specifically on initiatives to set the same state minimum wage for tipped and non-tipped workers and to allow all workers to bank earned sick leave, which will both take effect Feb. 21 due to a Michigan Supreme Court decision. The court held a Republican-controlled Legislature skirted the Michigan Constitution when it adopted the petition initiatives in 2018 to keep them off the ballot and then amended them after the November election.

The Supreme Court set a schedule to bring the minimum wage and earned sick leave laws up to date. Many businesses say these provisions are onerous. And restaurant owners and tipped workers showed up to warn of reduced hours, layoffs and business failures if the laws aren’t changed.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re in Monroe or Marquette, Detroit or rural Michigan, it impacts everybody, it hits everybody hard, which is why it’s important that we fix it, said Rep. Bill G. Schuette (R-Midland), who chairs the special committee.  

But advocates say those fears are overblown, and the wage and sick leave laws should take effect as the campaigns and the voters who signed the petitions intended.

Monique Stanton is with the Michigan League for Public Policy, a human services advocacy organization. She told the committee the proposed changes would come at a cost to workers.

“It would prevent nearly 1.5 million Michigan workers from being guaranteed earned sick time,” she said. “So, we’re talking about leaving 1.5 million people out of the ability to take time off if they have norovirus or their kid has pink eye.”

The committee has another meeting planned for Thursday, when the bills could be voted to the House floor. The legislation would have to be put on a fast track to be enacted before the wage and sick leave laws take effect next month.

Anything adopted by the House would also have to be agreed to by the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. They would also have to be signed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. 

Michigan’s employment and earnings numbers are coming in better than expected, which also means a likely windfall to help pay for K-12 schools, public universities, community colleges and state government. That determination was made Friday by a panel of state budget officials.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Legislature are required to use the numbers adopted by the Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference. It looks like they’ll have a little short of $33.2 billion to work with in the coming fiscal year. That is $770.4 million more than was anticipated.

Jen Flood, the Democratic governor’s budget director, said a lot of economic indicators are pointed in the right direction.

“Inflation is down, more people are working, and incomes are up,” she said. “Our strong economic growth means that we’re well positioned heading into 2025.”

State Treasurer Rachel Eubanks, who also works for Whitmer, said whether that surplus holds will depend a lot on actions by the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

“We will continue to watch very closely what happens at the federal level, especially as it relates to tax and trade policy and how that can potentially uniquely impact Michigan,” she said. “But we don’t have a crystal ball, so we do our very best to forecast revenues based on what we do know.”   

Many Republicans say they would like to see that surplus directed toward fixing roads and a tax cut.

“If we’ve got another billion in projected revenue that’s great, but it’s not a license to spend frivolously,” said Rep. Joe Aragona (R-Clinton Township). “There is still a lot of waste in the budget that we need to cut, and we should be looking for a way to return some of the surplus to the people of Michigan.”

The GOP negotiating position is significantly improved in this session with the Republican takeover of the Michigan House Representatives. The Senate remains in Democratic control.

Read more:

• MichMash: State lawmakers return to Michigan Capitol for first day of new session
• New rules give Michigan House Oversight Committee greater subpoena power
• Michigan GOP needs new leader, looks to maintain momentum

Republicans formally took control of the state House Wednesday after winning a majority of seats in the November election.

One of the chamber’s first actions was to give the House Oversight Committee broad power to subpoena state officials to testify. The oversight committee will have six subcommittees with purview over “weaponization” of government, the child welfare system, corporate subsidies by the state, public health and food security, homeland security and foreign influence, and public assistance.

Subpoenas would have to be approved by the full oversight committee.

State Rep. Mike Harris (R-Waterford), the house majority whip, said Republicans want to have every tool available at the front end of the process to compel cooperation. He said the rule will only be invoked if executive branch officials try to stonewall oversight activities

“Our goal is not to have that be the first gunshot that we make,” he said. “This is if we’re trying to obtain information, and we are not getting cooperation than that’s something we can fall back on.”

The inquiries will be directed at actions taken by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration as far as COVID-19 orders and business incentives. The committee could also be interested in actions by Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. All are Democrats.

Democrats voted for the package of rules as a collegial gesture on the new session’s first day, but are not happy with granting the committees up-front subpoena power.

“Obviously, I understand the need for accountability and transparency in government, but creating artificial witch hunts and politicizing the committee structure is not the way to get it done,” said state Rep. Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton), the House minority leader.

The Whitmer administration had no comment on the House rules.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled the due process rights of a woman who lost parental rights to her child were violated because the state never provided clear rules on what it would take for her to regain custody, and did not make family reunification a priority.

“It is well-established that parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children. Therefore, the Legislature has enacted a statutory scheme that elevates reunification of parents and children over termination of parental rights,” wrote Judge Allie Greenleaf Maldonado in the court’s precedent-setting opinion.

The mother, who had a history of substance abuse, gave birth while a patient at a rehabilitation hospital. She said the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) and the Calhoun County Circuit Court should not have allowed the termination proceedings to move forward based on alleged violations of a child safety plan that was never put in writing until after the department filed a petition seeking to separate the child and mother. The appellate court agreed.

Joshua Pease is with the State Appellate Defender Office and also chairs the State Bar of Michigan Children’s Law Section. He said the decision also requires the state to give parents clear notice of why their rights are at risk of being terminated, especially when the state is asking for an expedited timeline based on “aggravated circumstances” that put a child in danger.

“Not just a vague you-are-a-neglectful-parent type of allegation, but specifics of why the department believes the parent was neglectful, why they believe the child is unsafe in the parent’s care, and why they believe termination of parental rights is justified,” he told the Michigan Public Radio Network.

He said the ruling will also require MDHHS to provide a parent with a family reunification plan with specific requirements when it seeks termination of parental rights.

“The agency has to make it clear what steps a parent has to take and it has to be an individualized plan, so that it’s essentially an obtainable goal,” he said.

A spokesperson said the state Department of Health and Human Services is examining the decision, which can be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear cases in January that could decide whether more younger defendants convicted of murder will have an opportunity to have their mandatory sentences of life with no chance of parole reconsidered by a judge.

In 2022, the state Supreme Court decided that automatic life-without-parole sentences for 18-year-olds violate the Michigan Constitution.

Courts already ruled that defendants 17 years  old and younger convicted of murder could not be sentenced to life without hearings to take into account their youth, mental state and other individual circumstances.

In one of the cases, the defense argues that defendants who were 18 years old when they committed the crime and have exhausted their appeals should still be allowed to have their sentences reviewed.

The court will decide whether that decision should apply retroactively to the roughly 250 defendants who were 18 years old when they committed the crimes and whose cases “have become final after the expiration of the period for direct review.”

In the same session, the court will also hear arguments in related cases on whether defendants who were convicted of first-degree murder or felony murder for crimes committed when they were 19 or 20 years old should also be allowed to have their life sentences reconsidered.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed bills Monday that will expand unemployment benefits for people who are out of work.

Over three years, the maximum benefit will increase from $362 per-week to $614 weekly. Also, the maximum time period to collect benefits would increase to 26 weeks from 20 weeks.

“With winter just around corner, Michiganders are still juggling high costs and a competitive job market,” Whitmer said in a statement released by her office. “These bills will put money back in people’s pockets so they can keep a roof over their heads, pay the bills, get a good-paying job, and put food on the table.”  

Whitmer said Michigan is one of just a dozen states that offer unemployment benefits that are capped at less than 26 weeks.

Then-Governor Rick Snyder and the Republican-led Legislature rolled back the cap to 20 weeks in 2011, and business groups say this will encourage more people to delay returning to work during a worker shortage. This legislation would not likely have gotten to Whitmer’s desk after this term as Republicans will take control of the House next year.

Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber cheered the new laws.

“This victory for working people has been over a decade in the making,” he said in a statement released by the governor’s office. “… Finally, Michigan’s unemployment benefits will be restored to full strength after years of lagging behind our midwestern neighbors and practically every other state in the country.”

Business groups that did not support the legislation said they are concerned about the impact of the benefits expansion.

Small Business Association of Michigan President Brian Calley – who was Snyder’s lieutenant governor when the benefits rollback was signed – said an emergency order extending benefits during COVID-19 had the unintended effect of keeping people out of work longer then necessary.

“The extended higher unemployment level made it much more possible for jobs to go unfilled for longer periods of time,” he told Michigan Public Radio. “So, there is some concern, and we will be watching labor force participation very closely.”

Calley said he also would have preferred to see a longer recovery period for the trust fund that finances unemployment benefits. Employers pay into the trust fund. Calley said he also would have liked to see the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency complete a technology upgrade before a decision was made to increase benefits.