(The Center Square) – Michigan Republicans and Democrats are sparring over $645 million in state funding after Attorney General Dana Nessel ruled it cannot be terminated.
Nessel issued the formal opinion earlier this week, quickly sparking backlash from Republicans—who sought to terminate the funding via the Michigan House Appropriations Committee.
Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, has promised to sue.
“This is clearly a political decision from Dana Nessel, and the Democrats rigged this from the beginning,” he said. “We are going to sue, because Michigan taxpayers need someone to fight for them and stop this absurd and incorrect interpretation of Michigan law.”
Democrats called out Republicans and defended Nessel’s opinion.
“To attempt these cuts in the first place underscored how out of touch Republicans are with what the people of Michigan really want and need,” said House Democratic Leader Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton. “I’m grateful to know that the state Constitution is on our side, and these cuts are being stopped before they can do any more damage.”
This controversy started in December, when Republicans on the Michigan House Appropriations Committee disapproved of work projects from the State Budget Office. That meant that funding, which totaled more than $645 million, was cut following its appropriation in this year’s state budget.
The Michigan Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, then voted to restore that money. When the House, which is controlled by Republicans, refused to take action, Senate Democrats then requested Nessel issue a formal ruling on the issue.
Nessel ruled the disapproval was unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.
“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 said in her opinion. “When an appropriation is enacted, the legislature’s role ends, and the executive branch’s duty to faithfully execute the law begins.”
Republicans argue the opinion is wrong and warn that Nessel’s interpretation of state statutes could have far-reaching ramifications on other government funding.
“The House Appropriations Committee acted fully within its legal authority under a law that has been on the books for decades — a statute enacted in the 1980s that clearly allows the legislature to disapprove work projects that do not meet the standards required by law,” said House Appropriations Chair Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton. “Nothing about that authority is new, and nothing about our action was unconstitutional. What is new is Democrats’ frustration that the days of unchecked slush funds and blank checks are coming to an end.”
Republicans have expressed concerns with the state’s growing reliance on “work projects,” which currently has $10 billion allocated to it. This year’s budget appropriated an additional $2 billion of taxpayer funding with that designation.
Democrats argue that Republicans are weaponizing state statutes to pull back funding that has already been designated.
“The uncertainty and chaos that these attempted cuts caused, not to mention the cruelty in slashing programs for vulnerable moms and babies, veterans and more, was both unprecedented and completely unwarranted,” Puri said. “Republicans were so desperate to try and claim a win after a year of failures.”
