Aug. 2, 2024 | This Week in Government: Adopt and Amend Struck Down

A landmark 4-3 decision six years in the making from the Supreme Court landed on Wednesday, holding that the Legislature cannot adopt and then amend voter-initiated laws in the same session.

The ruling found that the scheme was unconstitutional and struck at the spirit of direct democracy. The court thus reinstated the two voter-initiated laws – PA 337 of 2018 and PA 338 of 2018. The high court ordered the laws to go into effect on Feb. 21, 2025, and invalidated the Legislature’s amended versions of the laws, PA 368 of 2018 and PA 369 of 2018.

One of the laws called for raising Michigan’s minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2022 and bringing the tipped minimum wage up to the regular minimum wage. The other mandated paid sick time for workers.

The opinion in Mothering Justice v. Attorney General (MSC Docket No. 165325) was written by Justice Elizabeth Welch, who was joined by her liberal colleagues Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Megan Cavanagh, and Justice Kyra Harris Bolden.

“We hold that this decision to adopt the initiatives and then later amend them in the same legislative session (what has been referred to as ‘adopt-and-amend’) violated the people’s constitutionally guaranteed right to propose and enact laws through the initiative process” Welch wrote.

For the minimum wage increase, the majority ordered a revised schedule that links the gradual phase-in of minimum-wage increases to the same annual schedule as originally proposed, but set into the future, and accounting for inflation. The current minimum wage is $10.33 for most non-tipped workers and $3.93 for tipped workers.

Justice Brian Zahra wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement and Justice David Viviano. The conservative justices would have held that the adopt and amend scheme was permissible.

Supporters of the initiated laws claimed victory on Wednesday, noting the high court’s affirmation of direct democracy, while opponents prophesied doom for the restaurant industry and businesses statewide (see separate story).

The case originated with two initiative petitions sponsored by One Fair Wage and Time to Care. The Act became known as the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act and the Earned Sick Time Act after being submitted to the Legislature in 2018.

The groups collected the required number of voter signatures as required by election law and filed the petitions with the Department of State, then headed by former Secretary of State Ruth Johnson.

Johnson notified the Board of State Canvassers, which then canvassed the petitions and submitted them to the Legislature pursuant to Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution. The provision allows the Legislature to adopt voter-initiated petitions as written without change or amendment or pass on adoption and instead place them on the ballot for voters to decide.

The Republican-controlled Legislature adopted the laws on Sept. 5, 2018. Neither petition appeared on the 2018 ballot as a result.

The strategy was to avoid the possibility of voter adoption of the proposals, which, under the Constitution, would mean that any future legislative attempts to amend the laws would require three-quarters of the majority in both legislative houses. There was no question that should the Legislature adopt the initiatives, future changes would only require a simple majority. What was not clear was whether they could do so during the same legislative session, given that the purpose of the constitutional provision is to allow citizens to work with the Legislature to enact laws against the opposition of the governor.

That year, current Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, beat then-Attorney General Bill Schuette in the 2018 gubernatorial election. The Republican-controlled Senate asked Schuette for a legal opinion regarding the Legislature’s legal authority to adopt and amend a voter-initiated law in the same legislative session.

Schuette opined that the Legislature could do just that, contradicting a 1964 opinion issued by then-Attorney General Frank Kelley.

The Legislature, during the lame duck session, made significant changes to the two laws, gutting their core provisions, and passed the amended laws with a simple majority vote. Outgoing Governor Rick Snyder signed the laws with an effective date of March 29, 2019.

Although Whitmer ascended to executive office in 2019, the Legislature was still controlled by Republicans in the House and Senate. An advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the adopt and amend strategy was sought from the Supreme Court that year.

The high court was led then by the liberal former Chief Justice Bridget McCormack but had a conservative majority. Still, the conservative Clement joined McCormack, Bernstein, and Cavanagh to deny the request, finding it inappropriate to rule on the controversy.

Clement wrote then that the Constitution did not give the court jurisdiction to issue an opinion on the effective date of an act. Even though the court had issued similar opinions in the past, Clement said, “most of the remaining post-effectiveness advisory opinions left the question of the timing of the request and the propriety of issuing a post-effectiveness opinion unaddressed.”

That meant without an actual controversy, like a lawsuit challenging the laws, the Supreme Court would not rule on the laws in question.

An actual controversy arose soon after in the form of Mothering Justice v. Attorney General, naming the newly elected Attorney General Dana Nessel a Democrat.

The plaintiffs, Mothering Justice, and One Fair Wage argued that the adopt and amend scheme was unconstitutional and that the laws initially adopted by the Legislature were still in effect.

Nessel asserted that she agreed with the plaintiffs, signaling no controversy, so the Court of Claims allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add the state as a defendant – defending the Legislature’s actions – but leaving the Attorney General on the case caption solely as a representative of the state.

Unified in their positions that the Legislature could not adopt and amend the laws in the same session, Nessel and the plaintiffs both filed motions for summary disposition, arguing against the Legislature’s actions.

Nessel also asserted the two adopted laws prior to the amendment would be in full effect if the amended acts were declared unconstitutional.

The Legislature, however, argued that the Constitution did not expressly prohibit the “adopt and amend” strategy in the same session.

Court of Claims Judge Douglas Shapiro sided with the plaintiffs, reasoning that the strategy employed by the Legislature did not appear in Article II, Section 9.

An appeal followed, and the panel assigned to the case reversed Shapiro’s opinion, finding that the move was allowed because the Constitution did not expressly prohibit adopt and amend in the same session. The opinion was written by Court of Appeals Judge Christopher Murray, with separate concurring opinions from Judge Michael Kelly and Judge Michael Riordan.

Mothering Justice and One Fair Wage then sought to reverse Murray’s opinion before the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the matter six years after the controversy arose.

MAJORITY RULES THE STRATEGY WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: In the opinion issued Wednesday, Welch and the majority ruled similarly to Shapiro, finding that Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution provides three, and only three, options upon receiving a valid petition.

Welch wrote that the Legislature may not adopt an initiative petition and then later amend it in the same session because it violates the people’s right to propose and enact laws through the initiative process.

Most lawmaking power is vested in the Legislature under Article IV, Section 1, but Article II, Section 9 reserves that power for the people. Under that provision, the Legislature’s three choices regarding initiated laws are to adopt them without change or amendment within 40 days, to reject the proposal and place it on the ballot in the next general election, or to reject the proposal and propose a different measure on the same subject.

That said, the plain text of Article II, Section 9 does not allow an option for the Legislature to reject an initiative outright without voter approval. Allowing “adopt and amend” as the Legislature did in 2018 would render Section 9 as “surplusage,” Welch wrote.

The canons of constitutional construction also dictate that the text’s original meaning to the ratifiers, the people, at the time of ratification, had to be considered. Welch said it would be absurd and implausible to assume or conclude that the people of Michigan – who only approved three options regarding initiated laws – allowed for a fourth and wholly contradictory option.

Welch further posited that the text of the provision is unambiguous, and that means it must be liberally construed in favor of the people.

“Although we agree that the text is unambiguous, we find that it unambiguously provides three possible options, as discussed previously,” Welch wrote. “To the extent that one finds that Article II, Section 9 is ambiguous due to its silence as to the permissibility of adopt-and-amend, a liberal construction in the people’s favor surely cuts against that fourth option. Construing Article II, Section 9 in favor of the people requires that we not allow the Legislature to sidestep the people’s reserved power.”

Undermining that reserved power would strike a blow to the heart of direct democracy and the very reason why the power was reserved in the first place, she said.

“Michigan voters reserved the initiative power to themselves to make government more responsive to the people. Until 1908, Michigan did not allow initiatives or referenda in any capacity,” Welch wrote. “In the early 20th Century, however, voters across the country grew tired of unresponsive and corrupt state legislatures. To gain a more responsive government, Michigan voters demanded direct democracy powers.”

The 1908 Constitution only allowed for the Legislature to place a bill on the ballot, while the amended 1913 Constitution allowed for citizen petitions because there was a sense that the legislative-sponsored initiatives were insufficiently responsive.

Initiated law processes grew stronger out of the 1963 Constitution, with the constitutional convention adding provisions to remove overly technical language.

“It appears that contemporaneous observers understood that adopt-and-amend is impermissible,” Welch wrote, looking to history in addition to constitutional construction. “We find that the record of the constitutional convention supports our holding. Delegate Downs, for example, emphasized that the framers ‘wanted to guard against … a situation where the people go to all the effort of an initiative campaign, which is hard work, win it, and then have the Legislature by a 51% vote reverse it.’ … His comments demonstrate that neither the framers nor the ratifiers could have envisioned the Legislature rejecting an initiative’s key proposals while sidestepping the will of the people.”

Welch said those considerations should make clear why no Legislature, up until the 2018 controversy, had attempted such a scheme.

“Indeed, by attempting to both reject an initiative and sidestep the people, adopt-and-amend impermissibly ‘thwarts’ the power that the people reserved for themselves,” she added. “As we have held, the people’s reserved power under Article II, Section 9 must ‘be saved if possible’ from ‘evasion or parry by the Legislature.’”

Welch also called foul on the argument that the Legislature has plenary power that allows it to “do anything which it is not prohibited from doing by the people through the Constitution.”

“That argument lacks merit. To start, it conflicts with (past precedent). The Constitution does not expressly prohibit adopt-and-repeal. Nevertheless, despite the Legislature’s Article IV powers, we held that the Legislature may not employ an adopt-and-repeal scheme,” she wrote. “Moreover, as discussed earlier, the people reserved the power of the initiative to themselves. Accordingly, to the extent that the Legislature’s lawmaking power is plenary under Article IV, that power does not apply to the initiative, which is a right reserved to the people. By reserving the initiative power to the people, the Constitution limits the Legislature’s role with respect to initiatives to the powers expressly conferred upon it.”

In terms of remedies, and as it relates specifically to the minimum wage increase, Welch said the original unamended Wage Act established a gradual phase-in period, and appropriate remedy would also include a gradual increase over a similar period.

“To fashion an appropriate remedy that reflects the original initiative’s purpose, we hold that a gradual phase-in mirroring the structure of the original Wage Act is most consistent with the Wage Act’s intent,” she wrote. “Accordingly, we adopt a remedy that links wage increases to the same annual schedule as originally proposed, but set into the future, starting on the effective date of this opinion.”

Bolden, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the majority but wrote separately to express her disappointment that “although petitioners followed the initiative clause of the Constitution to a tee, the issue somehow evaded the fundamental constitutional guarantee of placement on a ballot.”

“After all, that was the alternative that was given if the Legislature chose to reject the initiative’s proposed legislation,” Bolden wrote. “However, at this point, this solution, too, would seem to defy the language of the Constitution itself and thus would be inadequate. Further, if the Legislature chose not to enact a proposed initiative, both options available to the Legislature involved placing the issue on the ballot for majority approval at the ‘next general election.’”The next general election would have been the 2018 contest and not the 2020 contest after it.

“The initiative petition to which we now give our consideration, without dispute, met all statutory criteria to be on the 2018 ballot, including approval by the Board of State Canvassers. However, this initiative petition has not met any of the statutory criteria or received any of the necessary approvals to be on the ballot for the upcoming general election,” she added. “The Constitution does not appear to authorize us to remedy the situation in this case through the means seemingly intended – by placing it on the ballot.”

DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE SCHEME WAS PERMISSIBLE: The conservative justices would have ruled otherwise. In dissent, Clement wrote that Article VI, Section 1 vests the Legislature with the power to amend existing laws.

“And it has always been understood that the Legislature’s power under (the Constitution) is limited only if the Constitution expressly says so. Article II, Section 9 is silent about whether the Legislature may amend a law proposed by initiative petition that the Legislature has enacted, yet the majority concludes that the Constitution restricts the Legislature from amending a law proposed by initiative petition in the same legislative session – but, curiously, not later sessions.”

Although Clement said there was certainly reason to feel frustrated by the Legislature’s actions in 2018, which enacted a proposed initiative to avoid ballot approval only to substantially alter it, nothing in Article II, Section 9 restricts the legislative branch from doing just that.

“And as tempting as it might be to step into the breach, this court lacks the power to create restrictions out of whole cloth,” Clement wrote. “That power remains with the people, as our Constitution dictates.”

Although Zahra joined Clement’s opposition to the majority holding, he wrote separately to level his own punches against Welch’s opinion.

“Despite the extensive authority of the Legislature to enact statutes in the public interest absent narrow constitutional limitations, despite the complete lack of constitutional language preventing the Legislature from amending an adopted initiative, despite the extensive constitutional record supporting the Legislature’s ‘full control’ over adopted initiatives, and despite the total absence of case law limiting legislative prerogatives when the text of Article II, Section 9 is otherwise silent, the Court declares amendments to the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act and the Earned Sick Time Act unconstitutional,” Zahra wrote. “In so doing, it does not hold that adopt-and-amend is unconstitutional; it cannot so hold given the text of the Michigan Constitution and considering the effective functioning of a constitutional system.”

Instead, Zahra said, the majority superimposed a new requirement on the Constitution and abrogated “with precision” the legislation enacted in 2018.

“In the process, the majority opinion leaves later Legislatures free to adopt and amend as they please under this court’s newly devised guideposts. Given the majority opinion’s novel and legally unsupported ‘same legislative session’ rule and the attendant conclusion that the laws at issue are unconstitutional, the court is now left in a quandary. Generally speaking, in those rare instances when a statute is declared unconstitutional, the court closely analyzes the law to save as much of the statute from invalidity as possible. By severing unconstitutional provisions, the court preserves ‘legislative intent’ while also preventing the court from being thrust into ‘judicial

policymaking or de facto judicial legislation.”

In what he called a “misinterpretation” and an “erroneous decision on the merits,” the court was now left unable to sever unconstitutional provisions.

“Instead, two statutory acts expressly and unequivocally approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor are now declared unconstitutional in toto,” Zahra wrote. “Lacking any ability to limit its holding to certain individuals or the ability to sever provisions while saving the remainder of the acts, this court has two options. It can declare the relevant statutes void, or it can revive earlier versions of the statutes in their entirety to the extent it is consistent with legislative intent.”

Zahra said the majority chose neither of these options.

“Instead, the court abrogates the statutes the Legislature chose to enact, revives the outline of laws that the Legislature rejected, and wholesale rewrites the substance of those revived laws in a manner detached from the express statutory language and guided only by what the court views as ‘equitable,’” he wrote. “Ironically, the majority opinion declares the Legislature’s attempt to adopt and amend unconstitutional, yet it uses its judicial power to revive and amend the initiative that was intended to be placed on the ballot for public consideration. In the clearest way possible, the court exercises legislative power, drafting new legislation that has never been approved by the Legislature or approved by the voters.”

Zahra added that the majority did so “without a single vote of support from the elected Legislature or the citizens” and “has now written the public policy of this state as to minimum wages, tipped wages, and earned sick time.”

Whether the Legislature should make law changes to two voter-initiated measures that the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday were unconstitutionally adopted and amended several years ago will become a key question in the final months of this year.

Republicans and business groups immediately issued calls Wednesday for a legislative compromise after a high court ruling affecting the enactment of voter-initiated petitions that were adopted and amended involving worker wages and mandated paid sick time (see separate story).

Under the ruling, the tip credit will be completely phased out to the full minimum wage by February 2029, while the minimum wage would be $12 per hour plus the inflationary adjustments made by the state in February 2028. Mandated paid sick time for workers is also enacted under the ruling.

One Fair Wage, the group that gathered the signatures for the minimum wage measure in 2018, was thrilled with Wednesday’s ruling.

“This is a great day for the more than 860,000 workers in Michigan who are getting a raise,” One Fair Wage President Saru Jayaraman said in a statement. “We have finally prevailed over the corporate interests who tried everything they could to prevent all workers, including restaurant workers, from being paid a full, fair wage with tips on top.”

Jayaraman said with Wednesday’s ruling, Michigan will be the eighth state to end the subminimum wage for tipped workers and the first in more than 40 years to do so.

“This is just the first of many more victories to come in a year in which key voter groups, especially young voters and voters of color, have named ‘this rising cost of living’ and ‘jobs with living wages’ as their top electoral priorities!” Jayaraman said.

Business groups quickly condemned the ruling.

Brian Calley, president and Chief Executive Officer of the Small Business Association of Michigan, told Gongwer News Service that the decision would have a devastating effect on small businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.

“The Supreme Court literally created a new law,” Calley said. “It’s really judicial activism.”

Calley said the paid sick time proposal would move businesses to an antiquated system with less flexibility for workers and businesses and would enact an “obnoxiously complex to administer” regulatory framework under which to operate sick leave and paid time off.

Calley said that the minimum wage ruling would have a significant negative impact on businesses, workers, and consumers.

“When you have much higher expenses and customers who just cannot pay more, that means small businesses have few options,” Calley said.

Calley urged the Legislature to address the language of the measures before they go into effect. He said restoring the tip credit is paramount, and there are many options for easing the regulatory effects of paid sick leave on businesses.

Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association President and Chief Executive Officer Justin Winslow, in a statement, called the ruling tone-deaf and “a likely existential blow to Michigan’s restaurant industry and the nearly 500,000 workers it employs.”

“We urgently call on the Michigan Legislature to act swiftly, implementing a compromise solution that prevents this impending catastrophe before it is implemented,” Winslow said. “The future of Michigan’s restaurant industry and the stability of Michigan’s overall economy hands in the balance.”

John Sellek, spokesperson for Save MI Tips, which opposed the measure, urged the governor and Legislature to work with businesses following the ruling to restore the tip credit. He said thousands of workers would lose their jobs if the initiatives were to go into effect without changes.

“Servers and bartenders take these jobs because, through their own efforts, they can make far more than minimum wage,” Sellek said. “In their own words, they are now sure to suffer from lost income and lost jobs as the hospitality industry is thrown into economic turmoil because of this secretive, dark money-funded out-of-state group.”

Legislative leadership was divided along partisan lines in statements following the high court’s ruling.

Whether there would be any legislative response was not immediately known Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) said the caucus’ legal team will be reviewing the decision in the coming days.

“Here’s what I know to be true: the Legislature has a responsibility to uphold the will of the people,” Brinks said. “Additionally, the people of Michigan deserve clarity. The then-Republican majority made a deceitful bait-and-switch on the very people they were sworn to serve, and this lengthy battle was caused by their tactics.”

Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt (R-Porter Township) disagreed.

“This misguided ruling from the Supreme Court will make everything more expensive for struggling Michigan families while also having a devastating effect on the jobs of tipped workers,” Nesbitt said. “The Legislature needs to act now to prevent catastrophic damage to the livelihoods of the workers at restaurants and bars throughout out state that barely survived the mandated COVID lockdowns and are still facing increased costs due to inflation.”

House Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) said he was glad there is now clarity on the matter.

“The Michigan Supreme Court has provided clarity regarding the process for a citizen-initiated law, and voters in Michigan now have the certainty they deserve when it comes to bringing a matter before the Legislature,” Tate said. “We are happy to have a resolution in this matter and are in the process of reviewing the full opinion issued by the court.”

House Minority Leader Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) said the Legislature should return immediately to address the effects of the decision.

“Restaurants and other small businesses will have to raise their prices, tipped workers will take home less pay, and some people will lose their jobs,” Hall said. “While Democrats are out on the campaign trail, servers and bartenders are still hard at work. But they might be on the unemployment soon if Democrats don’t come back and help House Republicans save Michigan jobs.”

Several Republican lawmakers echoed GOP leadership’s calls for a legislative response.

Rep. Noah Arbit (D-West Bloomfield) on X, formerly Twitter, was one Democrat who was open to working on a legislative fix. He said although he believed the court decision was correct, there could be significant job losses and restaurant closures without some law changes.

“I look forward to working with colleagues and partners on a fix that will not leave our beloved community restaurants on a cliff edge this winter,” Arbit said. “I am committed to working through the impact of today’s ruling and advocating for policy that protects both our workers and restaurants.”

Attorney General Dana Nessel, in a statement, called the ruling “a resounding affirmation of the power of direct democracy.”

“This ruling sends a clear message that elected officials cannot disregard the voices of their constituents,” Nessel said. “I am glad to see the court recognize and respect that the people reserved for themselves the power of initiative, a crucial tool meant to shape the laws that govern them.”

Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit) told Gongwer she was pleased with the ruling. Chang asked for an attorney general opinion on adopt and amend in early 2019, on the same day that the Republican-controlled Legislature passed resolutions asking for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the question (See Gongwer Michigan Report, Feb. 19, 2019).

“This is a huge victory for Michigan voters,” Chang said. “This Supreme Court ruling is very welcome.”

Business and labor groups quickly sounded off Wednesday in statements.

Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber thanked the court for its ruling.

“The Republican-controlled Legislature’s flagrant disregard for the citizen initiative process has robbed Michigan workers of wages and sick leave for the past five years,” Bieber said. “Republicans in the Legislature quite literally stole out of the pockets of Michigan workers, and today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is the first step in righting this wrong and making workers whole.”

Jim Holcomb, president and Chief Executive Officer of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, took aim at what he called an example of judicial activism.

“While we were hopeful they would put politics aside and focus on the text of the Michigan Constitution, they didn’t,” Holcomb said. “The separation of powers between legislative and judicial branches is a foundation of our state and country. We need more rule of law justices who uphold this critical separation and do not legislate from the bench.”

Amanda Fisher, the National Federation of Independent Business Michigan state director, said that calling the group disappointed would be an understatement. She also called on the Legislature and governor to work with employers to make changes to the law.

“The implications of this ruling are going to have wide-ranging negative effects on Michigan and will be a nightmare for all employers in Michigan – not just businesses,” Fisher said. “The reason the Legislature chose to adopt and amend was due to the original language being a regulatory nightmare and to provide clarity for employers and employees.”

Voters Not Politicians Executive Director Jamie Lyons-Eddy called Wednesday’s ruling a win for direct democracy.

“We’re pleased to hear that the MI Supreme Court has overturned the anti-democratic “adopt-and-amend” legislative scheme used to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Michiganders who supported these citizen initiatives and bypass the millions of voters who deserve an opportunity to make their voices heard,” Lyons-Eddy said.

Mike Johnston, vice president of government affairs and workforce development at the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said the high court damaged the group’s ability to attract and retain manufacturers in the state.

“The Michigan Legislature will have an opportunity to help mitigate the damage that will be caused by the court’s decision,” Johnston said. “The vast majority of manufacturers in this state are small companies, and they will be especially impacted. We look forward to working with legislative leaders to remove unreasonable barriers to hiring people and competing in the global economy before the end of the session this year.”

Court of Appeals 2nd District candidate Randy Wallace was appointed Thursday to the very bench he is seeking election to in November by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a move that sets Wallace up to receive an incumbent judge designation on the ballot.

Wallace is one of three candidates seeking to replace Court of Appeals Judge Kathleen Jansen and Judge Deborah Servitto. The other candidates in the race are Matthew Ackerman and Latoya Marie Willis.

Wallace’s appointment on Thursday fills Servitto’s seat. His term begins on Aug. 12 and will expire on Jan. 1, 2025.

Wallace is a shareholder and attorney with the Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace firm based in Berkley. His practice has focused on personal injury with an emphasis on premises liability and representing vulnerable adults. He is an executive board member of the Michigan Association for Justice and served as the co-chair of the organization’s New Lawyer’s Committee.

“I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Gov. Whitmer for giving me the opportunity to serve the people of the great state of Michigan on the Court of Appeals,” Wallace said in a statement. “I have spent years watching some of the finest jurists in our state decide cases in a manner that promotes equal access to justice for all, including now retired Michigan Supreme Court justices like Justice Bridget McCormack and Justice Marilyn Kelly, and now retired judges like Judge Elizabeth Gleicher and Judge Douglas Shapiro, just to name a few.”

Wallace also praised Servitto, whom he now replaces on the bench.

“One of my first jury trials was presided over by Judge Deborah Servitto, who was then a judge on the Macomb County Circuit Court and who treated all the participants with the utmost respect,” Wallace said. “I will do my very best to follow the examples set by those esteemed members of the bench, and I will work hard as a humble servant of the people of the State of Michigan.”

As to the advantage he now has as an incumbent judge, the boost could be significant given the traditional power an incumbent designation gives judicial candidates. It could, in effect, make the contest a race between Ackerman, who has the backing of some business groups and clerked for conservative judges, and Willis, who has the backing of two Democratic prosecutors, a Democratic sheriff, and a large number of judges.

Michigan residents might see some relief at the gas pump after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency granted the state an emergency fuel waiver that will increase the supply of fuel and mitigate price fluctuations during a refinery outage.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer requested the waiver following the shutdown of the ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery in Illinois due to severe weather last month. The waiver is intended to increase access to fuel and mitigate price fluctuations while the outage is expected to last into August, and the potential for a severe hurricane season further disrupts access to fuel.

“Thanks to our partners in the Biden-Harris administration, we are taking action to help secure access to a stable fuel supply for Michiganders as we head into severe weather season,” Whitmer said in a statement issued Thursday. “The temporary waiver granted by the EPA will help us keep fuel prices stable, ensuring Michiganders can fuel their cars or heat their homes and businesses at a predictable rate. Let’s keep working together to stabilize costs and ensure Michiganders can get where they’re going and help businesses keep their products moving.”

The waiver was granted based on the EPA’s ability to lift certain fuel requirements to address shortages as outlined by the Clean Air Act. The agency waived the federal regulations and federally enforceable State Implementation Plan requirements for the low Reid vapor pressure and reformulated gasoline requirements in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin to facilitate the supply of fuel in these areas.

The waiver will continue through August 20. Whitmer said she will continue to work with the EPA and the Department of Energy to monitor fuel levels and consider additional measures to alleviate the effects of the shutdown.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and members of Michigan’s congressional delegation celebrated the release of Michigander Paul Whelan and journalist Evan Gershkovich from wrongful detainment in Russia on Thursday after an elaborate prisoner swap involving several countries was successful.

Whelan, a former Marine from Novi, was detained in 2018 while visiting Russia for a wedding. He was convicted of espionage in 2020 and sentenced to 16 years in a high-security prison. Gershkovich was arrested over a year ago while on assignment for The Wall Street Journal and was recently convicted of a similar espionage charge, also sentenced to 16 years.

Whitmer and Lieutenant Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II expressed gratitude to the Biden-Harris administration for its efforts to bring Whelan and Gershkovich home, a process which The Wall Street Journal reported involved years of clandestine communication between the U.S. and other Western governments to secure an offer for a swap with Russia.

“Today, a Michigan family can breathe a long sigh of relief after a years-long nightmare,” Whitmer said in a statement. “Paul Whelan, a proud United States Marine and Michigander, is finally coming back home along with Evan Gershkovich, a journalist, and several other Americans. When Paul was unjustly arrested in 2019, he was on his way to Michigan, and I am grateful to the Biden-Harris administration for successfully negotiating his peaceful release. It’s been five long years, and I know Paul’s family and every Michigander is excited to welcome him with open arms and lots of love.”

“The whole state of Michigan is thankful and relieved that Paul Whelan, Evan Gershkovich, and other Americans are coming home,” Gilchrist said in the same statement. “Thanks to tireless diplomacy by the Biden-Harris administration, they have been freed from cruel and unwarranted detention in Russia. Today is a testament to our power to get things done and leave no American behind. My thoughts are with Paul and Evan’s families and friends who have waited so long to welcome them back.”

The prisoner swap also included American journalist Alsu Kurmasheva and British-Russian dissident and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Vladimir Kara-Murza, who holds an American green card. In exchange for the release of the Americans and several political dissidents in Russia, President Vladimir Putin demanded the release of Vadim Krasikov, a professional hitman who was convicted of murder in Germany in 2019.

Whelan and the other prisoners were flown from Russia to Turkey early Thursday morning and are set to arrive in the U.S. sometime tonight. Speaking to reporters at the White House, President Joe Biden said the success of the swap was an “incredible relief.”

“They’re out of Russia. Earlier today, they were flown to Turkey. And soon, they’ll be wheels up on their way home to see their families,” Biden said. “This is an incredible relief for all the family members gathered here. And it’s a relief to the friends and colleagues all across the country who’ve been praying for this day for a long time. The deal that made this possible was a feat of diplomacy and friendship — friendship. Multiple countries helped get this done. They joined difficult, complex negotiations at my request.”

U.S Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Birmingham) thanked Biden for his work to free Whelan, who lives in her district.

“Paul Whelan is on his way home, thank God. Paul’s liberty was unjustly taken from him for more than five years,” Stevens said in a statement. “He lost his job, his dog, and his home; now he has the opportunity to regain his life. Thank you to President Biden, the Whelan family, and my colleagues in Congress for the tireless work and advocacy that made this remarkable moment possible.”

Stevens was joined in cheering the swap by U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Ann Arbor), U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township), and U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Lansing), who said the deal was “wonderful news.”.

“Their detainment has been an affront to due process, international law, and human rights, and we have never given up hope or stopped working for one moment to ensure their release,” Dingell said in a statement. “Paul is a Michigander who lived in Novi before his imprisonment, and his parents still live in my district. I have become friends with them and Paul’s siblings as I have worked with them, and I have seen how difficult this has been and know how tireless they have been in their efforts to bring him home.”

Stevens and Dingell have pressed for Whelan’s release since his detainment in 2018, with Stevens serving as a co-chair of the Congressional Hostage Task Force. Peters sponsored two resolutions, one in 2021 and one in 2023, calling for the release of Whelan and other Americans classified by the U.S. government as wrongfully detained in Russia.

“Today is a joyous and long overdue day for Paul, his family, and all who have been working tirelessly to get him back home to Michigan,” Peters said in a statement. “For the past several years, I have worked with Administration officials, my colleagues, and Paul’s family to press for his release, and I’m beyond relieved that today marks the end of this unimaginable nightmare for Paul and his loved ones. Michigan welcomes him home with open arms.”

U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Flint), who sponsored one of the U.S. House resolutions calling for Whelan’s release and has worked on several cases involving Americans detained abroad, including four Americans held hostage in Iran in 2016, attributed the successful swap to Biden and Harris’s “unwavering commitment” to bringing imprisoned Americans home.

“Russia wrongfully detained Paul and Evan as political prisoners after sham trials with no evidence of wrongdoing,” Kildee said in a statement. “Both Paul and Evan, as well as their families, suffered greatly through this terrible ordeal. But even on the darkest days, they never gave up hope—and neither did the American people. Now, we are grateful Paul and Evan are on their way home to be reunited with their loved ones.”