The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)


STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5548

August 17, 1979

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN:

Art 4, Sec. 16 (legislative rules of proceedings)

LEGISLATURE:

Rules of proceedings

Each House of the Legislature may adopt a rule which requires a standing committee to report out a bill within a specified time period and that rule may be suspended at will.

The Honorable William Faust

Senate Majority Leader

The Senate

Office of the Majority Leader

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have asked for my opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 37. The proposed amendment would institute the following Senate rule:

'Rule 30. A bill which is introduced as a result of the recommendation of an evaluation committee pursuant to Rule (29)(f) shall be reported out by the standing committee to which the legislature has been sent not more than 60 days after receipt of the legislation by the standing committee.'

You question is:

'Is it constitutional, either by Rule or statute, to require a standing committee to report out a bill within a specified time period?'

Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 1 vests legislative power of the State of Michigan in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 16 the people have provided:

'Each house, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall choose its own officers and determine the rules of its proceedings, but shall not adopt any rule that will prevent a majority of the members elected thereto and serving therein from discharging a committee from the further consideration of any measure. . . .'

Thus, the only restriction imposed by the constitution upon the rules of proceedings of a house of the legislature is that neither house may adopt a rule which will prevent a majority of the members of the house from discharging a committee from the further considerations of a measure. There is no other limitation upon the rules of proceedings which may be adopted.

Rules of proceedings adopted by a house of the legislature may be subsequently set aside by members of the house of the legislature. In Anderson v Atwood, 273 Mich 316; 262 NW 922 (1935), the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a bill passed by both the House and Senate had been enacted into law where the Senate suspended its rule limiting the time in which a motion to reconsider might be made resolved to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been previously passed and, upon reconsideration defeated the measure. In so deciding, the Supreme Court stated:

'Rules of legislative procedure, adopted by the legislature and not prescribed by the Constitution, may be suspended and in action had, even if contrary thereto, will not be reviewed by the court.' 273 Mich at 319

Thus, it is my opinion that the Senate may adopt a rule which requires a standing committee to report out a bill within a specified time period, and that rule may be suspended at will by the Senate.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General