House to act Tuesday on domestic partners resolution

The Michigan House of Representatives is prepared to vote on a resolution which would overrule a January decision by the Michigan Civil Service Commission to provide partner benefits to state employees.

Republicans say the move will cost $6 to $8 million in increased costs for the state. Supporters say the costs are inflated, noting that in other locations where similar benefits have been implemented a tiny fraction of those eligible for the program enrolled.

The Senate passed the resolution earlier this month in a voice vote. One Democrat crossed party lines to join the Republican super majority in the chamber to approve the resolution. Because the bill was approved on a voice vote, it is unknown who that Democrat was.

And the House seems poised to push the resolution through with a similar action. In the House the move is called “gaveled through.” It is used by the majority party (including Democrats in the past) to pass consent agendas quickly. The acting chair, who is not always the Speaker, calls the vote, there is a verbal response (aye or nay) and the chair says the motion has passed.

The House currently has a 63 member GOP majority. But approving this resolution requires a two-thirds super majority, which means 74 votes, so 11 Democrats need to cross party lines in order for the bill to pass.

The resolution was passed out of committee last week while protesters were demonstrating against plans by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to eliminate the Michigan Earned Income Tax Credit and to impose a tax on retirement pensions.

If the House approves the measure, it will be the first time in the history of the MCSC that a decision by the body was overturned by the legislature. Republicans are also seeking a ballot initiative to remove the MCSC from the state constitution, and in the meantime has been working to strip the body of much of its power.

American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn sent a letter to Republican leaders in the state asking them to reject the MCSC decision. But he went a step further and asked them to ask Bill Schuette, the GOP Attorney General, to determine if providing the benefits violated the state’s “Marriage Protection Amendment.”

That amendment was passed in 2004 by voters and defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and disallows the recognition of any other “similar” relationship. The last six words of the amendment — “or similar union for any purpose” — led to a lengthy court battle in the state that ended with the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that providing same-sex partner benefits violated that provision. As a result, many public employers in the state created other eligible individual insurance programs. The MCSC resolution was based on those programs.

The domestic partner benefits were collectively bargained for during the Granholm administration and written into contracts. Union officials say the proper way to address the issue for the Snyder administration is at the bargaining table this summer — not through a legislative fiat undermining a good faith negotiation and agreement.

Correction: The American Family Association of Michigan did not ask Attorney General Schuette to provide a formal legal opinion on the constitutionality of the domestic partner benefits, as the article originally said; rather, they called on the legislature to ask Schuette to offer such an opinion.