LANSING, Mich. (WZMQ) – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel says a law that allows a single legislative committee to cancel state funding already approved by lawmakers and the governor violates the Michigan Constitution.
In a formal opinion released Wednesday, Nessel ruled that the Michigan House Appropriations Committee overstepped its authority when it voted in December to block nearly $645 million in state spending. The funding had already been approved by both chambers of the Legislature and signed into law, but was later halted through a procedural vote known as a “work project” disapproval.
Work projects allow unspent money from one budget year to continue being used for its original purpose in a new fiscal year. The state budget director, part of the executive branch, approves those requests. Under the disputed law, either the House or Senate Appropriations Committee could act alone to reject them.
Nessel said that process gives too much power to a single committee and interferes with the governor’s role in carrying out laws that are already in effect.
“By empowering a single legislative committee to negate the State Budget Director’s work-project designations, the statute reserves the very administrative control that the separation of powers forbids,” Nessel wrote. “This disapproval mechanism effectively creates a ‘legislative veto’, or, more accurately, a ‘legislative committee veto.’”
She said the Michigan Constitution requires laws, including changes to spending decisions, to be passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the governor. Allowing one committee to cancel funding after the fact, she wrote, bypasses that process.
While Nessel found the committee veto unconstitutional, she said the rest of the law governing work projects can remain in place, including the budget director’s authority to approve continued spending.
Democratic lawmakers said the committee’s actions caused confusion and put important programs at risk.
“From the moment House Republicans weaponized this rare provision to unilaterally, and without discussion, cut $645 million in appropriated funding for kids with cancer, sexual assault survivors, firefighters and police, and thousands of other cities, non-profits and Michiganders, House and Senate Democrats began fighting back,” House Democratic Leader Ranjeev Puri said.
Puri said the cuts were “unprecedented and completely unwarranted,” adding, “Even more ridiculous, they tried to call jeopardizing trust in state government ‘eliminating waste.’”
The Michigan Democratic Party praised Nessel’s action, saying the funding cuts were harmful to communities across the state.
“State House Republicans knew that cutting funding from affordable housing, health care, and crucial programs across the state was wrong, but they didn’t care,” party chair Curtis Hertel said. “These cuts were an abomination.”
Republican leaders strongly disagreed with the attorney general’s opinion, saying the committee acted within its legal authority.
“Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion is wrong on the law and wrong on the facts, and it feels far more like a political defense of Democrats’ pet projects than an objective legal analysis,” said Rep. Ann Bollin, chair of the House Appropriations Committee. “The House Appropriations Committee acted fully within its legal authority under a law that has been on the books for decades.”
Bollin said lawmakers have a responsibility to oversee how taxpayer dollars are spent, adding, “That is not how responsible government works, and it is not what Michigan taxpayers expect.”
House Speaker Matt Hall said Republicans plan to challenge the opinion in court.
“This is clearly a political decision from Dana Nessel, and the Democrats rigged this from the beginning,” Hall said. “Without this law, Democrats will build their slush funds without any oversight.”
Hall added, “Michigan taxpayers need someone to fight for them and stop this absurd and incorrect interpretation of Michigan law. And we’ll win very easily.”
Attorney general opinions guide how state agencies operate, but can be overturned by a judge. With Republicans vowing to sue, the dispute now appears headed for court.
