Kaplan testifies against domestic partnership bans

Jay Kaplan, attorney with the ACLU of Michigan’s LGBT Project, testified this morning against two bills that would prohibit public employers — universities, municipal and state government agencies — from providing benefits to the domestic partners of employees.

Before the Senate Reform, Restructuring, and Reinventing Committee, Kaplan argued that those bills violate the Michigan Constitution and undermine the ability to attract the best employees.

“Given the lack of economic soundness behind these proposals, one is left to believe that the true motivation behind these bills is a cynical, mean-spirited attempt to attack and harm people that certain members of this legislature do not like,” said Jay Kaplan, ACLU of Michigan LGBT Project staff attorney during his testimony. “House Bills 4770 and 4771 are wrong. They are unfair. They are unconstitutional and they will be challenged in court should they become law.”

House Bills 4770 and 4771 passed the state House in September and would prohibit any government entity, including universities and city governments, from providing health benefits to domestic partners. These bills were introduced after the legislature failed to override a Michigan Civil Service Commission decision to ratify a collective bargaining agreement that allows certain state employees to share health care benefits with an “other eligible adult.”

During his testimony before the Reform, Restructuring, and Reinventing Committee, Kaplan said he agreed with the legal analysis of Michael Gadola, legal counsel to Governor Rick Snyder, who indicated in a May 18, 2011 letter to Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville and Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, that legislative policies such as those outlined in HB 4770 and 4771 infringe upon the constitutional authority of public universities and are therefore both unconstitutional and unenforceable. In addition, Kaplan explained that the policies also infringe upon the authority of local governments to adopt employment practices, including the ability to decide who should receive health insurance coverage.

“Michigan courts have long recognized that the legislature may not interfere with a university board institutional management and control,” said Kaplan. “The State of Michigan, including its legislative body, has always been strongly committed to the concept of home rule. This legislation blatantly goes against this history.”