
This article originally appeared in The Detroit News January 7 2025.
The 2024 lame-duck legislative session provided fuel for the argument that Michigan should end its practice of holding sessions during the period between the election and the inauguration of a new Legislature. The Democrats’ slim majority in the House blew apart in acrimonious finger-pointing. Several House Democrats skipped session days, depriving Speaker Joe Tate, D-Detroit, of a quorum. House Republicans walked off the floor. Attorney General Dana Nessel threatened to prosecute absentee lawmakers, earning rebukes from legislators in both parties.
In December, lawmakers prepared to move hundreds of bills in just a few days, which hardly allows for careful consideration. A committee hearing on Dec. 12 captured the chaos. Rep. Jim Haadsma, D-Battle Creek, lost his re-election bid. In his last days as chair of the House Labor Committee, Haadsma brought up bills that would have added $20 billion to state debt. He refused to allow public testimony or even let committee members ask questions at the hearing. “We’re out of time,” Haadsma said.
It’s understandable that calls to reform lame duck emerge every few years — and not just in Michigan. Over in the Buckeye State, a bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed that the Ohio Legislature permanently eliminate lame-duck sessions. (Like most lame-duck legislation, the Ohio bill seems to have gone nowhere.) But we should think twice before pulling the plug on lame-duck lawmaking.
Before changing something, it is appropriate to ask why it exists. According to Bridge Michigan, Michigan’s lawmakers held a lame duck session in 1900; it’s been routine since 1970.
The Michigan Constitution allows the Legislature to meet throughout the year. Michigan has three co-equal branches of government. We don’t tell the governor to stop governing or the courts to stop issuing opinions after Election Day. Voters who elect lawmakers expect them to serve a full term.
Changing lame duck, even with sensible tweaks, would require a constitutional amendment, which is difficult. Amendments require hundreds of thousands of signatures or a two-thirds legislative vote, then voter approval. It’s unclear who would pay for such a proposal.
Also unclear is whether eliminating lame duck would change legislative behavior. As with the case of a procrastinating student, moving the deadline is not likely to improve behavior. Michigan lawmakers took generous breaks in November for deer season and Thanksgiving. The time crunch was artificial.
Voters in Michigan aren’t clamoring for a change to lame duck. This issue tops no one’s list. Good ideas or bad ideas can be adopted in January just as easily as they can in the dark days of December.
Lame duck reveals two things: priorities and leadership. We saw an example of leadership in 2012 when then-House Speaker Jase Bolger focused his caucus and passed a right-to-work law. It was the right policy for Michigan and politically popular, even though it attracted loud opposition.
The lame-duck session just completed also gave us leadership lessons. The Senate was steady and workmanlike, prioritizing bills it could send to the governor. The meltdown in the House will have ripple effects. Political observer Bill Ballenger says Tate’s rumored Detroit mayoral run is over: “How can you run a city of thousands when you can’t run a 56-member caucus?”
Meanwhile, Whitmer’s approach to lame duck was hands-off. She failed to negotiate any big wins as the play clock of her Democratic trifecta ran out. Lawmakers openly complained about her absence.
Eliminating lame duck won’t necessarily result in better policy, which depends more on leadership, priorities and what the voters want. There was little to cheer about during 2024’s lame-duck session. But that isn’t reason enough to change the process.
Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.
Get insightful commentary and the most reliable research on Michigan issues sent straight to your inbox.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government. Through our research and education programs, we challenge government overreach and advocate for a free-market approach to public policy that frees people to realize their potential and dreams.
Please consider contributing to our work to advance a freer and more prosperous state.
Donate | About | Blog | Pressroom | Publications | Careers | Site Map | Email Signup | Contact