MICHIGAN — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel issued a formal opinion today declaring that a legislative disapproval mechanism allowing a single legislative committee to terminate previously appropriated funding is unconstitutional.
According to a Jan. 7 news release from the AG’s office, the opinion came in response to a request from Senate Appropriations Chair Sarah Anthony after a December vote by the Michigan House Appropriations Committee to disapprove nearly $645 million in state funding that had already been enacted into law.
The relevant statute, MCL 18.1451a(three), is part of the Management and Budget Act, which allows the continuation of previously approved funding for new fiscal years.
In her opinion, Attorney General Nessel found that the disapproval mechanism violates both the separation of powers principle and the bicameralism and presentment requirements established by the Michigan Constitution.
According to her, this legislative mechanism improperly allows one committee to control the executive branch’s execution of laws already enacted by the full Legislature and signed by the Governor.
Nessel wrote, “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.” She characterized the disapproval mechanism as a “legislative veto,” asserting it undermines the legislative process by permitting a single committee’s decision to override the collective action of both legislative chambers.
The Attorney General also indicated that the unconstitutional disapproval mechanism is severable from the rest of MCL 18.1451a, meaning the other provisions of the statute concerning work projects remain valid and enforceable.
These provisions include the authority of the State Budget Director to approve work projects, which designate the spending purposes for previously approved funds.
While Attorney General opinions are not legally binding in Michigan, they aim to provide guidance for legal questions posed by legislators.
There are no immediate next steps described regarding this opinion, but the implications for state funding processes may prompt further discussion in the Legislature.