The Michigan Legislative Drafting Manual, specifically its sections on statutory construction and the interpretation of legislative intent, emphasizes the principle of ejusdem generis. This Latin maxim, meaning “of the same kind,” dictates that when a general word follows a list of specific words, the general word should be interpreted to include only those things that are of the same class or kind as the specific words. For instance, if a statute in Michigan lists “cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles,” the term “other vehicles” would likely be interpreted to include other motorized land conveyances similar to those enumerated, rather than, for example, aircraft or watercraft. This principle aids drafters in ensuring that the scope of a statute remains consistent with the legislature’s specific enumeration of items, preventing overly broad interpretations that might not align with the original intent. The manual guides drafters to consider the context and purpose of the statute when applying such interpretative canons, ensuring that the enacted law accurately reflects legislative will and avoids unintended consequences. The application of ejusdem generis is a fundamental tool in precise legal drafting to maintain the integrity of statutory language.

The core principle tested here is the constitutional requirement of a supermajority vote for overriding a gubernatorial veto in Michigan. Article II, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 states that a bill vetoed by the governor may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This means that in the House, with its 110 members, a two-thirds vote requires at least \( \lceil \frac{2}{3} \times 110 \rceil = \lceil 73.33 \rceil = 74 \) votes. In the Senate, with its 38 members, a two-thirds vote requires at least \( \lceil \frac{2}{3} \times 38 \rceil = \lceil 25.33 \rceil = 26 \) votes. Therefore, to override a veto, a minimum of 74 votes in the House and 26 votes in the Senate are necessary. This constitutional provision ensures a higher level of consensus is needed to enact legislation against the governor’s expressed disapproval, reflecting a balance of power within the state’s governmental structure. Understanding these specific vote thresholds is crucial for legislative drafters to accurately assess the viability of overriding a veto and to draft procedural language accordingly.

The core principle being tested here is the legislative intent behind amendments to the Michigan Compiled Laws, specifically focusing on how a bill that amends an existing statute must clearly indicate the changes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the standard drafting practice, mandated by legislative rules and historical precedent, is to enclose new or added material in boldface type and to strike through material being deleted. This convention ensures that legislators and the public can readily identify precisely what changes are being proposed to the existing law. For instance, if a bill seeks to amend MCL 750.123, which prohibits the sale of certain goods, and the amendment adds a new category of prohibited goods, that new category would appear in bold. If the amendment also removed a previously existing exemption, that exemption would be struck through. This method of indicating amendments is crucial for transparency and for enabling a thorough understanding of the proposed legislative action. Without this clear visual demarcation, discerning the exact impact of an amendment would be significantly more challenging, potentially leading to misinterpretations of the law’s effect. The Michigan Legislative Service Bureau adheres to these strict drafting protocols to maintain clarity and accuracy in the legislative process, ensuring that the public record accurately reflects proposed alterations to state statutes.

The Michigan Legislative Council Act, specifically MCL 4.1401, establishes the Legislative Service Bureau (LSB) and outlines its powers and duties. One of these duties is the preparation of legislative bills and amendments. When drafting legislation, drafters must adhere to established style and formatting guidelines to ensure clarity, consistency, and legal efficacy. The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) themselves are a codification of enacted statutes, and the process of amending them involves specific drafting conventions. For instance, when amending an existing section of the MCL, a drafter must clearly indicate which part of the existing text is being changed, added, or deleted. This is typically done using specific typographical conventions, such as striking through deleted text and italicizing or underlining new text, although the precise method can vary based on internal LSB style guides and the specific nature of the amendment. The goal is to make the changes immediately apparent to other legislators, staff, and the public, facilitating a thorough understanding of the proposed legislative action. The principle is to ensure that the amended statute is readily understandable and that its effect is unambiguous. The Michigan Legislative Drafting Manual provides detailed guidance on these conventions.

The Michigan Legislative Council Act, specifically MCL 4.121, establishes the Legislative Service Bureau (LSB) and outlines its powers and duties. One of the LSB’s core functions is to prepare legislative measures. When drafting a bill, a legislative drafter must adhere to established principles to ensure clarity, consistency, and legal efficacy. The principle of “plain language” is paramount, requiring the use of clear, concise, and unambiguous terminology. This avoids jargon and overly complex sentence structures that could lead to misinterpretation. Furthermore, drafters must ensure that new legislation does not conflict with existing Michigan statutes or the United States Constitution. This involves thorough legal research and analysis. The drafting process also necessitates careful consideration of the bill’s intended scope and effect, ensuring that it addresses the problem it aims to solve without creating unintended consequences. The structure of a bill, including its sections, subsections, and the use of defined terms, is critical for its readability and enforceability. For instance, a drafter must decide whether to amend an existing section of law or create a new one, and how to properly cite the statute being amended. The process also involves understanding the legislative intent behind the proposed measure, which guides the precise wording of the bill. The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) serve as the primary reference for existing statutory language, and drafters must be proficient in navigating and interpreting these compiled laws. The principle of statutory construction, including rules like *ejusdem generis* or *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*, informs how ambiguous language might be interpreted by courts, making precise drafting even more crucial.

The Michigan Legislature’s Committee on Administrative Rules (CAR) reviews proposed administrative rules from state agencies. CAR’s primary role is to ensure that these rules are consistent with legislative intent, constitutional requirements, and existing statutes. The process involves a thorough examination of the proposed rule’s language, its potential impact, and its adherence to the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA). CAR can approve, reject, or suggest modifications to proposed rules. If CAR rejects a rule, the agency can attempt to override the rejection by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. The question asks about the specific threshold for an agency to override a CAR rejection. This threshold is established by the Michigan APA, specifically MCL 24.245(2). This subsection of the APA clearly states that an agency may submit a rule for legislative consideration if it is rejected by the committee, and if both houses of the legislature approve the rule by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house, the rule becomes effective. Therefore, the correct answer reflects this two-thirds majority requirement in both legislative chambers.

The scenario describes a legislative bill in Michigan that proposes to amend Section 450.1259a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, which governs the requirements for corporate annual reports. Specifically, the bill aims to remove the requirement for a physical signature by an authorized officer on these reports when filed electronically. This type of amendment falls under the purview of legislative drafting that modifies existing statutory language. When drafting such an amendment, the legislative analyst must ensure that the proposed language precisely targets the section to be altered and clearly articulates the change. The principle of legislative intent is paramount; the drafted language must reflect the clear purpose of the bill, which in this case is to streamline the filing process for corporations by eliminating a redundant physical signature requirement for electronic submissions. This aligns with modernizing governmental processes and reducing administrative burdens. The proposed amendment would directly amend the existing statute, making the change legally effective upon enactment. The other options represent different legislative actions: a joint resolution is typically used for proposing constitutional amendments or expressing legislative sentiment, not for amending statutory law. A concurrent resolution, while passed by both houses, generally does not have the force of law and is used for internal legislative matters or to convey messages between the houses. An executive order is issued by the Governor and does not involve the legislative process for amending statutes. Therefore, the most accurate legislative vehicle for this proposed change is an amendatory act.

The Michigan Legislative Council Act, specifically MCL 4.101 et seq., establishes the Legislative Council and its Bureau, which is responsible for providing legislative staff services. MCL 4.105 outlines the powers and duties of the Legislative Council, including the preparation and publication of the Michigan Compiled Laws and the Michigan Administrative Code. When a bill is enacted into law in Michigan, it undergoes a process of enrollment, authentication, and filing. The enrolled bill is the final version as passed by both houses of the Legislature. Following passage, the bill is printed in its enrolled form. The Secretary of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives authenticate the enrolled bill. The enrolled bill is then presented to the Governor for action (approval or veto). If approved, it is filed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is then responsible for publishing the new law. The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) are the compilation of all general and permanent statutes enacted by the Michigan Legislature. The Bureau of Legislative Services, under the Legislative Council, is tasked with maintaining and publishing the MCL. Therefore, the final enrolled bill, after gubernatorial approval and filing with the Secretary of State, becomes the official text that is incorporated into the Michigan Compiled Laws by the Legislative Bureau. The legislative drafting process aims to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to constitutional and statutory requirements, culminating in an enrolled bill that accurately reflects the legislative intent and is ready for codification.

The Michigan Legislative Council Act, specifically MCL 4.1301, establishes the Legislative Service Bureau and outlines its duties, including the drafting of legislation. This act is foundational to understanding the process by which bills are prepared for introduction in the Michigan Legislature. The Legislative Service Bureau is tasked with ensuring that proposed legislation conforms to constitutional requirements, is clearly written, and accurately reflects the intent of the legislator. This includes adherence to specific drafting conventions and the application of legal principles to translate policy ideas into statutory language. The bureau’s role is to provide non-partisan, professional drafting services, acting as a crucial intermediary between the policy goals of legislators and the formal requirements of law. Therefore, understanding the statutory basis for the Legislative Service Bureau’s authority and responsibilities is paramount for anyone involved in the legislative drafting process in Michigan. The Michigan Constitution, Article IV, Section 26, mandates that bills shall be written in full and that no bill shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. This constitutional provision directly informs the drafting standards employed by the Legislative Service Bureau, emphasizing clarity, single subject matter, and accurate titling.

The Michigan Legislative Drafting Manual, a key resource for drafters in Michigan, emphasizes clarity, precision, and adherence to established legislative conventions. When drafting a bill, particularly one that amends existing law, a drafter must clearly identify the section(s) being altered. This is typically achieved through the use of “strike and insert” language or by explicitly stating the amended section’s number and title. The goal is to ensure that any reader, including other legislators, staff, and the public, can readily understand which part of the law is being modified and how. This precision prevents ambiguity and potential misinterpretations that could lead to unintended legal consequences or challenges. For instance, if a bill seeks to modify Section 15 of the Michigan Public Health Code concerning reporting requirements for communicable diseases, the drafting must specifically reference “Section 15 of the amendatory act” or similar precise language, rather than a general description of the reporting process. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the statute and ensuring that the legislative intent is accurately captured and implemented. The principle of “no surplusage” is also paramount, meaning every word should serve a purpose and contribute to the clarity of the provision.

The Michigan Legislature’s primary role in the budget process involves proposing, debating, amending, and ultimately approving or rejecting the Governor’s budget recommendations. This process is guided by constitutional provisions and legislative rules. Article IV, Section 31 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 mandates that the legislature shall make appropriations for the expenses of the government. The process typically begins with the Governor submitting a proposed executive budget to the legislature. The House and Senate then review this proposal, often through their respective appropriations committees. These committees hold hearings, gather input, and develop their own versions of the budget bills. Legislators can propose amendments to these bills during committee meetings and on the floor of each chamber. The Michigan Constitution also requires that the budget be enacted into law through the passage of appropriations bills, which must then be signed by the Governor. The concept of “line-item veto” is also relevant, as the Governor can veto specific appropriations within a bill without rejecting the entire bill. However, the legislature has the power to override a gubernatorial veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each house. The question asks about the most direct legislative action to modify the Governor’s proposed budget. While oversight and hearings are crucial, they are preparatory to the formal legislative action of amending and passing bills. The Governor’s proposal is a recommendation, and the legislature’s power is exercised through its constitutional authority to amend and enact appropriations bills. Therefore, the most direct and impactful legislative action to alter the Governor’s budget proposal is through the amendment and passage of appropriations bills.

The Michigan Legislature has established specific rules regarding the codification and amendment of statutes. When a bill is introduced that amends an existing Michigan statute, the legislative service bureau’s drafting division is responsible for ensuring the amendment is accurately reflected in the language of the bill. This process involves identifying the precise section or subsection of the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) being modified. The principle of “strike and insert” is fundamental here. If a bill intends to replace a specific phrase or sentence within an existing law, the drafting process must clearly indicate what is being removed and what is being added. The phrase “strikes and inserts” is a standard legislative drafting term that signifies the deletion of existing text and the substitution of new text in its place. This ensures clarity and avoids ambiguity in the amended statute. For instance, if MCL Section 123.456 currently reads “The county shall provide a public park,” and a bill proposes to change “public park” to “community green space,” the amendment would be drafted to strike “public park” and insert “community green space.” This precise methodology is crucial for maintaining the integrity and understandability of the Michigan Compiled Laws, as mandated by legislative drafting standards and practices within the state.

The core principle tested here is the distinction between substantive and procedural amendments in legislative drafting, specifically within the context of Michigan law. A substantive amendment alters the fundamental meaning, effect, or scope of a statute, impacting the rights, obligations, or powers it creates or defines. A procedural amendment, conversely, addresses the mechanics of how a law is implemented, enforced, or administered without changing its underlying purpose or impact on individuals or entities. For instance, changing the effective date of a law or modifying reporting requirements for an agency are procedural. However, altering the eligibility criteria for a benefit, modifying a penalty, or redefining a prohibited act are substantive. In Michigan, the legislative process itself, as governed by the Michigan Constitution and the Michigan Compiled Laws, dictates how these types of amendments are handled. Understanding this distinction is crucial for drafters to ensure clarity, avoid unintended consequences, and adhere to constitutional requirements for legislative action, such as ensuring that amendatory language clearly indicates what is being changed. A bill that merely renumbers sections or corrects typographical errors without altering the legal effect is typically considered a non-substantive or technical amendment.

The core principle being tested here is the application of statutory construction rules, specifically the doctrine of “ejusdem generis,” within the context of Michigan legislative drafting. When a general word follows a list of specific words of a particular class, the general word is usually construed to include only items of the same class as the specific words. In Michigan, this principle is a long-standing rule of statutory interpretation, often invoked by the courts. For instance, if a statute in Michigan listed “automobiles, motorcycles, and trucks” and then included “other motor vehicles,” the interpretation under ejusdem generis would limit “other motor vehicles” to those that share the common characteristics of the preceding enumerated items, such as being self-propelled and primarily designed for transport on roads. This contrasts with a broader interpretation that might include any self-propelled vehicle regardless of its primary use or design. The drafting of legislation must anticipate such interpretive rules to ensure clarity and prevent unintended consequences. A legislative drafter must consider how a court might interpret the language used, especially in ambiguous situations, to ensure the statute achieves its intended purpose. The phrase “any other like conveyance” following a list of specific types of vehicles would, under ejusdem generis, be limited to conveyances that share the essential characteristics of those specifically listed. This ensures that the scope of the law is confined to the type of items the legislature is presumed to have intended to regulate.

The Michigan Legislative Drafting Manual, a foundational document for drafters in Michigan, outlines specific principles for statutory construction and clarity. One key principle is the avoidance of ambiguity. When interpreting statutes, courts often look to legislative intent, which can be discerned from various sources, including the plain language of the statute, legislative history, and contemporaneous construction. In Michigan, the principle of *ejusdem generis* is frequently applied. This rule of statutory construction states that when general words follow a list of specific words, the general words should be construed to include only matters of the same kind as the specific words. For instance, if a statute lists “dogs, cats, and other animals,” *ejusdem generis* would suggest that “other animals” refers to domestic animals, not wild animals, unless further context indicates otherwise. This principle helps ensure that the scope of a statute is not expanded beyond what the legislature likely intended by its specific enumeration. Understanding and applying *ejusdem generis* is crucial for drafting precise legislation that reflects the intended scope and avoids unintended consequences. This principle is a common area of inquiry in legislative drafting examinations to assess a candidate’s grasp of statutory interpretation tools.

The Michigan Legislature’s Committee on Administrative Rules is tasked with reviewing proposed administrative rules for compliance with legislative intent and statutory authority. When a proposed rule is submitted, it undergoes a review process. If the committee finds that a proposed rule conflicts with existing Michigan statutes or exceeds the authority granted by statute, it can recommend disapproval. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) then has the opportunity to review the committee’s recommendation. If JCAR also finds the rule to be inconsistent with legislative intent or statutory authority, it can adopt a resolution of disapproval. Such a resolution, if not vetoed by the Governor, effectively prevents the rule from becoming effective. This process ensures that administrative agencies do not overstep their delegated powers or create regulations that contradict established state law. The specific statutory basis for this oversight is found within the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA), MCL 24.201 et seq., which outlines the procedures for rule promulgation and legislative review.

The core principle being tested here is the process of legislative amendment in Michigan, specifically concerning the interplay between a proposed amendment and existing statutory language. When a bill proposing an amendment to a Michigan statute is introduced, the drafting process requires precise identification of the section(s) to be amended. The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) is the codified body of Michigan statutory law. If a bill proposes to amend MCL Section 123.456, and the intent is to add a new subsection (2) to that existing section, the drafting must clearly indicate this addition. The phrase “adds subsection (2) to section 456” is a standard and accurate way to convey this legislative intent in drafting. It signifies that a new, distinct part is being created within the specified section, rather than modifying existing text or adding to a pre-existing subsection. This precision is crucial to avoid ambiguity and ensure that the enacted law accurately reflects the legislative will. The other options represent incorrect drafting conventions or misinterpretations of amendment processes. For instance, “revises section 456 by adding text” might imply modification of existing language within the section rather than the creation of a new, enumerated part. “Reenacts section 456 with a new provision” is also imprecise, as reenactment typically refers to re-establishing a repealed or amended section in its entirety, not just adding a new subsection. Finally, “amends section 456 to include subsection (2)” is grammatically correct but less specific in its drafting convention than “adds subsection (2) to section 456,” which directly communicates the creation of a new structural element within the section.

The scenario involves a legislative drafter tasked with amending the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) concerning environmental impact assessments for new industrial facilities. The core issue is how to incorporate a requirement for assessing the cumulative impact of multiple, smaller facilities in a specific region, rather than just individual facility impacts. This requires understanding the principles of statutory construction and the practicalities of legislative drafting in Michigan. Specifically, the drafter must consider how to define “cumulative impact” in a way that is legally sound and practically enforceable, without being overly vague or overly prescriptive. This involves careful word choice to ensure the amendment addresses the intended policy goal of understanding broader environmental consequences. The Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) provide the broader legal framework for environmental regulations and administrative rulemaking in Michigan, which would inform the drafting process. When amending existing statutes, drafters must ensure consistency with the overall structure and intent of the MCL. The process of amending MCL typically involves identifying the specific section to be amended, drafting new language, and ensuring that the amendment does not create conflicts with other existing laws. The goal is to create clear, unambiguous language that accurately reflects the legislative intent and can be implemented effectively by regulatory agencies.

The scenario involves drafting a bill to amend the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Act 110 of 2006. Specifically, the amendment concerns the process for a local zoning board of appeals to grant a variance. Under current Michigan law, a variance can be granted if strict compliance with the zoning ordinance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for a permitted purpose and the variance would not be detrimental to the public good or the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendment aims to introduce a new criterion for granting a use variance: demonstrating that the hardship is unique to the applicant’s property and not of the applicant’s own making. This is a common legislative drafting consideration, ensuring that variances are for genuine, unavoidable hardships and not self-created difficulties. The correct drafting approach would be to insert this new criterion directly into the existing statutory language governing the granting of variances. This involves identifying the precise section of Public Act 110 of 2006 that outlines the criteria for variances and adding the new requirement. For instance, if the current language is in Section 606, the amendment would modify that section to include the new unique hardship requirement. The other options represent less precise or incorrect methods of legislative amendment. Option b) is incorrect because referencing a separate, non-amended act would create confusion and not effectively modify the Zoning Enabling Act. Option c) is incorrect because a joint resolution is typically used for proposing constitutional amendments or expressing legislative sentiment, not for amending statutory law. Option d) is incorrect because a declaratory ruling is an interpretation of existing law by an administrative agency, not a legislative amendment to the law itself. Therefore, the most appropriate and legally sound method is to amend the specific section of the existing act.

The Michigan Legislative Council Act, MCL 4.101 et seq., establishes the Legislative Council and its duties, including the preparation and publication of legislative materials. Section 4.106 specifically addresses the compilation and publication of the Michigan Compiled Laws. When drafting legislation that amends existing statutes, drafters must consider the impact on the codification and publication process. The Michigan Compiled Laws is the official compilation of statutes. Amendments must be drafted to integrate seamlessly into this existing structure, ensuring clarity and consistency. A bill that proposes to repeal and reenact a section of the Michigan Compiled Laws, but fails to clearly indicate which existing section is being affected and what the new provisions are, creates ambiguity and hinders the legislative codification process. This lack of precision can lead to difficulties in updating the official compilation and can cause confusion for legal practitioners and the public who rely on the accuracy of the published laws. Therefore, a drafter must ensure that amendments clearly identify the statute being modified and the precise nature of the changes to facilitate proper codification and public understanding.

The core principle tested here is the distinction between a bill that proposes an amendment to the Michigan Constitution and a bill that enacts statutory law. A constitutional amendment requires a specific, more rigorous legislative process, including potential referral to the electorate for approval. Statutory law, while requiring passage through the legislative process, does not necessitate constitutional amendment procedures. Therefore, a bill that seeks to alter the fundamental structure of judicial appointments, as described, by changing the method of selecting judges from appointment to election, is proposing a change to the Michigan Constitution. This is because Article VI of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 governs the judiciary and the selection of judges. Any alteration to this foundational method would necessitate an amendment to that article. Drafting a bill that mandates a shift in judicial selection from appointment to election would therefore require a legislative proposal to amend the constitution, not merely a statutory change. The process for amending the Michigan Constitution is outlined in Article 12 of the constitution itself, detailing requirements for legislative proposal and potential voter ratification. This contrasts with the standard process for enacting or amending statutes under Article IV of the constitution.

The core principle being tested here is the legislative intent behind statutory interpretation, specifically concerning the application of the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) to new technologies or evolving circumstances not explicitly contemplated at the time of enactment. When interpreting a statute, courts in Michigan, as in many jurisdictions, look to the plain meaning of the words used. If the language is clear and unambiguous, it is generally applied as written. However, if the language is ambiguous or the statute’s application to a novel situation is unclear, courts may resort to extrinsic aids to discern legislative intent. These aids can include legislative history, committee reports, prior versions of the bill, and the overall purpose of the statute. The Michigan Supreme Court has consistently held that the primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. In this scenario, the hypothetical “Autonomous Vehicle Safety Act” (AVSA) was enacted before widespread commercial availability of Level 4 autonomous vehicles. The phrase “driver of a motor vehicle” in MCL 257.625, which prohibits operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, needs to be interpreted in the context of the AVSA. The legislative intent behind MCL 257.625 was to ensure public safety by preventing impaired individuals from operating vehicles. With Level 4 autonomy, the vehicle can operate itself under specific conditions, and the human occupant may not be actively “driving” in the traditional sense. However, the underlying public safety concern remains. Therefore, a court would likely interpret “driver” to encompass the person responsible for the vehicle’s operation, even if that responsibility is supervisory rather than directly manipulative, to uphold the statute’s public safety purpose. This interpretation aligns with the principle of statutory construction that statutes should be interpreted to achieve their intended purpose, especially when faced with technological advancements. The Michigan Vehicle Code, including MCL 257.625, is broadly aimed at regulating vehicle operation and ensuring safety on Michigan roadways. The AVSA, as a more recent enactment, provides context for how the legislature views and intends to regulate emerging automotive technologies. The question requires understanding how statutory interpretation bridges the gap between existing law and new technological realities by focusing on legislative intent and the purpose of the law.

The Michigan Legislature, when drafting statutes, must adhere to constitutional mandates and established legislative drafting principles to ensure clarity, enforceability, and legal validity. One critical aspect is the proper treatment of legislative intent and the avoidance of ambiguity. When a statute is amended, the legislature must clearly indicate which sections are being modified, added, or repealed. This is typically achieved through specific language that delineates the scope of the amendment. For instance, if a section is being entirely replaced, the amendment will state that the section is amended to read as follows, followed by the new text. If only a portion is being changed, the amendment will specify the subsection or phrase being altered. The concept of “enrolled bills” is also paramount; once passed by both houses and signed by the Governor, the enrolled bill becomes the official text of the law. The principle of “plain meaning” dictates that statutory language should be interpreted according to its ordinary and natural sense, unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed or the language is so obscure as to require construction. The legislative intent behind a statute is the ultimate guide in its interpretation, and drafters must strive to express this intent unequivocally. The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) is the codified body of Michigan statutes. Amendments to existing laws must be incorporated into the MCL, and the drafting process ensures that these changes are accurately reflected in the official compilation. The principle of “prospective application” generally means that laws apply to events occurring after their effective date, though exceptions exist. The Michigan Constitution, particularly Article IV, outlines the legislative branch’s powers and procedures, including requirements for bill introduction, passage, and publication.

The core principle guiding legislative drafting in Michigan, particularly concerning the structure and organization of statutes, is the concept of logical coherence and clarity. When drafting new legislation or amending existing laws, drafters must ensure that provisions are placed in a logical order that reflects their subject matter and purpose. This involves understanding the hierarchy of statutory components, such as sections, subsections, and paragraphs, and how they relate to each other. For instance, a new section addressing a specific regulatory framework should be situated within a chapter or part of the act that deals with similar subject matter. If an amendment modifies an existing section, the drafter must ensure the amendment is incorporated seamlessly, maintaining the original intent and flow of the statute. The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) are organized thematically, and new legislation is typically assigned a Public Act number and then incorporated into the MCL under the appropriate chapter or topic. The process involves careful consideration of existing statutory language to avoid conflicts, redundancies, or ambiguities. The goal is to create legislation that is easily understood by legal professionals, government officials, and the public, facilitating consistent application and interpretation. The principle of “in pari materia” is also relevant, suggesting that statutes dealing with the same subject matter should be construed together. Therefore, a new provision concerning environmental remediation, for example, would ideally be drafted and placed in proximity to other environmental statutes or within a dedicated part of a larger act addressing environmental protection.

The Michigan Legislature’s process for amending the state constitution is a complex, multi-stage endeavor designed to ensure thorough consideration and broad public support. The initial step involves the proposal of an amendment, which can originate from either the legislative branch or through a citizen-initiated petition process. If proposed by the legislature, it requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This high threshold is a significant hurdle, reflecting the constitutional framers’ intent to make fundamental changes to the state’s governing document difficult. Following legislative approval, or upon successful certification of a citizen initiative, the proposed amendment must then be submitted to the electorate for ratification. This submission occurs at a general election, not a special election, ensuring maximum voter participation. Crucially, for the amendment to be adopted, it must receive the approval of a majority of the votes cast on the proposal. This two-tiered system, requiring both legislative supermajority (or sufficient citizen signatures) and popular vote, exemplifies a deliberate design to safeguard the Michigan Constitution from hasty or ill-considered alterations. The process is detailed in Article 12 of the Michigan Constitution.

The question tests the understanding of the legislative process in Michigan, specifically concerning the amendment of initiated statutes. An initiated statute, once approved by the voters, becomes law. While the legislature can amend any law, including initiated statutes, the process for amending an initiated statute requires a higher threshold for passage than a standard legislative act. Specifically, under Michigan law, an initiated statute can only be amended or repealed by a law passed by the Legislature that is approved by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. This is a critical distinction from ordinary legislative acts, which generally require a simple majority. The rationale behind this higher threshold is to provide greater protection to laws enacted directly by the people through the initiative process, ensuring that legislative changes to these popular mandates are not easily made. Therefore, to amend an initiated statute, the bill must secure a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature.

The Michigan Legislature’s Committee on Oversight, chaired by Representative Anya Sharma, is tasked with reviewing administrative rules promulgated by state agencies. Specifically, they are examining a proposed amendment to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) rule R 325.777, which pertains to air quality standards for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in industrial facilities. The committee has received numerous comments, including a detailed analysis from the Michigan Manufacturers Association (MMA) arguing that the proposed VOC reduction targets are technically infeasible for certain existing heavy industrial processes and would impose disproportionate economic burdens, potentially leading to job losses in the Upper Peninsula. Conversely, the Clean Air Advocates of Michigan (CAAM) submitted a brief asserting that the current standards are insufficient to protect public health, citing studies linking elevated VOC levels to respiratory illnesses in communities near industrial zones in Southeast Michigan. The core of the legislative drafting challenge lies in balancing competing interests and ensuring the rule is both effective and legally sound. Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA), specifically MCL 24.241, outlines the process for rule promulgation, including requirements for public hearings, submission of statements of objection, and the legislative review process. Under MCL 24.241(3), if a joint committee of the legislature receives a written objection to a rule, it can issue a statement of objection. If the agency does not withdraw or amend the rule in response to the objection, the committee can then recommend that the legislature adopt a joint resolution to approve or reject the rule. The APA also mandates that rules must be based on statutory authority and must not be arbitrary or capricious. In this scenario, the Committee on Oversight, after considering the extensive public comments, must decide on a course of action. The MMA’s objection, focusing on feasibility and economic impact, raises questions about the reasonableness and potential overreach of the proposed rule, potentially challenging its adherence to the APA’s requirement for rules to be based on adequate factual justification and not be arbitrary. CAAM’s concerns highlight the public health imperative, suggesting the need to uphold or strengthen the rule. The committee’s role is to analyze these arguments within the framework of existing Michigan law and the agency’s statutory authority. The question of whether the committee can directly amend the rule or must instead recommend legislative action for approval or rejection is central. The APA grants legislative committees the power to review and object, and if the objection is not resolved by the agency, the ultimate decision on the rule’s fate rests with the legislature through a joint resolution. The committee itself does not have the authority to unilaterally amend the rule; its power is to review, object, and recommend legislative action. Therefore, the most appropriate next step, given a significant objection that the agency has not resolved, is for the committee to recommend legislative action to address the rule.

The scenario describes a legislative proposal in Michigan that aims to amend the Michigan Vehicle Code. The core of the question revolves around the proper placement of an amendment that introduces a new definition for “electric personal assistive mobility device” and modifies an existing section concerning the operation of such devices. When drafting legislation, particularly amendments, precision in referencing existing statutory language is paramount. An amendment that adds a definition typically belongs in the section of the act dedicated to definitions, often designated by a specific section number. Modifying an existing section requires clear indication of which subsection or paragraph is being altered. The principle of legislative drafting dictates that amendments should be inserted in the most logical and least disruptive location within the existing statutory framework. If a new definition is being created, it should be placed within the definitional sections of the act, usually at the beginning or in a dedicated definitions part. Subsequently, the operational provisions referring to this new definition should be amended to reflect its inclusion. Therefore, inserting the new definition into the existing definitional section of the Michigan Vehicle Code and then amending the operational section to incorporate this new definition is the standard and most accurate drafting practice. This ensures clarity, avoids redundancy, and maintains the structural integrity of the statute. The Michigan Vehicle Code, like many statutes, has specific sections for definitions (e.g., MCL 257.11) which are the appropriate place for new definitions. Amendments to operational rules are then made to the relevant sections detailing vehicle operation.

The Michigan Legislative Council is a body responsible for overseeing the legislative process in Michigan, including the drafting of bills. When considering amendments to existing statutes, particularly those that might affect the fiscal operations of state agencies, the Council must adhere to specific procedural and substantive requirements. One such requirement, stemming from Michigan’s constitutional and statutory framework, involves ensuring that proposed amendments do not inadvertently create unfunded mandates or alter revenue streams without proper legislative authorization and fiscal impact analysis. For instance, if a proposed amendment to the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) were to require a state department, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, to implement a new program or service without a corresponding appropriation, it would likely be deemed problematic under fiscal responsibility principles embedded in Michigan’s legislative drafting standards. The principle here is that legislative changes must be fiscally sound and transparent, with any new expenditures or revenue diversions clearly identified and accounted for through the legislative appropriations process. Drafting legislation that necessitates new state spending without an identified funding source, or that significantly alters existing revenue mechanisms without explicit legislative intent and approval, runs counter to established practices for responsible fiscal management within the state. This ensures accountability and prevents the executive branch from being compelled to undertake new duties without adequate financial backing, a core tenet of legislative oversight in Michigan.

The Michigan Legislative Council Act, specifically MCL 4.1021 et seq., establishes the Legislative Council and its powers and duties, including the promulgation of administrative rules. When drafting legislation that impacts the regulatory framework of a state agency, a legislative drafter must consider the existing statutory authority of that agency to promulgate rules. If a proposed bill seeks to grant an agency new regulatory power or modify existing powers, the drafter must ensure the bill clearly articulates the scope and limitations of that authority. Furthermore, the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq., governs the process by which state agencies adopt, amend, and rescind administrative rules. This includes requirements for public notice, hearings, and filing rules with the Secretary of State. A drafter must be cognizant of these procedural mandates to ensure that any rule-making authority granted or modified by legislation is exercisable in compliance with the APA. The concept of legislative intent is paramount; the drafter’s work must accurately reflect the policy goals of the legislature. Therefore, when a bill proposes to authorize a state department to establish specific standards for the operation of independent foster care agencies, as an example, the drafter must ensure the bill either specifies those standards directly, provides a clear framework for their development, or explicitly grants the department rule-making authority under the APA to create those standards, referencing the statutory basis for such authority. The drafter must also consider whether the proposed standards or the authority to create them conflict with existing statutes or federal requirements. The core principle is to create legislation that is clear, constitutional, and effectively implements legislative policy within the established administrative and statutory framework of Michigan.