by Rob Smith

It’s not unfair to say that the Michigan GOP has been muscling aside the Democrats in Lansing on their way to pass some pretty pernicious legislation. Cut 11,000 families off of state assistance? Check. Expand Public Act 4 (Emergency Manager law) to the point of thwarting democracy—imposed primarily on black folks? Check. Go after the state’s teacher’s union by doing away with the MEA’s ability to automatically collect dues from members’ paychecks? Double check. Take away benefits from the families of public employees who happen to be gay? A sparkly pink check. The list goes on and on and on. The list of bloggers, news hounds and political analysts who have been flogging the Michigan GOP and Governor Rick Snyder is equally long.

And rightly so.

The latest round of political hyperventilation by Michigan Democratic legislators, bloggers and others is, however, more political theater than anything else. If you haven’t heard about the Michigan GOP’s alleged misuse of the “immediate effect” rule that means laws passed go into effect right away, you’ve been napping. It’s pretty simple. Mother Jones writer Kevin Drum explains:

Normally, it takes several months for new state laws to take effect, but a two-thirds “immediate effect” vote can cause laws to take effect right away. Lately, however, Republicans have been jamming through every law this way without bothering to actually get a two-thirds majority. They pass the bill, then do a voice vote on immediate effect and quickly announce that it’s been approved. Voila. The bill is law as soon as the governor signs it.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has done a credible job keeping the nation informed of the Michigan GOP’s efforts to reshape the state into a poster child for ALEC-inspired government. At the same time, there’s plenty of hyperbole from local “news” writers: “Michigan GOP illegally passes bills….” I saw that one and cringed. The Michigan GOP didn’t illegally pass any bills. There wasn’t any illegality with the finally tally of the votes that had more in favor of, for instance, expanding Public Act 4, than against expanding the law that has called for the Governor to send in a single Emergency Manager to take over the local governments of several Michigan cities.

The issue revolves around whether or not there should have been immediate effect of the various laws. I have to be honest and say the first thing that came to my mind when I read that the Michigan Democrats were filing a lawsuit to force roll call votes on immediate effect was to wonder why it took a year for these folks to find the time to loudly complain. In other words, why did Michigan Democratic legislators wait while so many terribly damaging pieces of legislation were immediately implemented before hopping up and down and sending out press releases about the lack of roll call votes?

I have had a huge problem for the past year about the lame fight Michigan Democrats in Lansing have put up against the passage of these bills. So, this public fight over the GOP’s widespread use of “immediate effect” triggered my BS meter. It turns out mine wasn’t the only BS meter triggered. These Dems are going to have to begin running for re-election. What better way to be able to go back and tell constituents that, “We tried to stop these guys, but we just couldn’t” than by filing a high profile lawsuit asking for the Michigan GOP to follow the state Constitution?

That’s a stone cold interpretation, maybe, but I’m not the only one who has taken note of the fact that as the Democrats sent to Lansing have been quiet and ineffectual when compared to Democrats in Wisconsin and other states.

A few months after the expanded Public Act 4 was passed and put into immediate effect, the Michigan Citizen ripped the Dems in Lansing for not calling for a roll call vote:

It is time to kick the donkey.

….Earlier this year, Rep. [John] Olumba recorded his vote against Public Act 4, the Emergency Manager law, in the House Journal. He also opposed the immediate effect of the EM law and requested a roll call vote. Although Democrats voted “no” on PA4, they did not at that time support Olumba’s roll call request nor his suggestion to place their “no” vote in the House Journal. They were saving their lack of political might to oppose an issue that would, so far, affect Black cities and school districts.

Mother Jones recently cast a cold eye on the situation in Michigan, and came away with the real story:

So what’s the story here? If I had to guess, I’d say that gaveling through immediate effect is hardly unprecedented, and Democrats obviously didn’t scream very loudly about this when the emergency manager law was passed last year. At the same time, it’s also not automatic. Big, controversial bills often require a roll call vote for immediate effect, but Michigan Republicans, imbued with tea party spirit, have decided to ignore this and use it for every bill they pass.

So in some sense this is similar to Republican abuse of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. It’s not outrageous in the sense that Republicans are doing something unprecedented and anti-democratic. It’s outrageous in the sense that they’re playing Calvinball: breaking a norm of governance by taking a tradition that was used occasionally in the past and turning it into a routine part of party politics. That’s something they’re pretty good at.

A couple of days ago Rachel Maddow highlighted what she called an “outrageous abuse of power by Michigan Republicans.” They have had their moments of outrageously abusing power, but this latest tempest isn’t one of them. Maddow missed the point. This isn’t a new conspiracy that should cause everyone to grab a pitchfork and head to Lansing. Quite the opposite. Declaring immediate effect without a roll call vote was something the Democrats did when they controlled the game, quite often and effectively. At the same time when the GOP demanded a roll call vote, the requests were respected. That’s what’s missing now. Kevin Drum writes, “gaveling through approval of immediate effect is no new thing, but roll call votes have always been taken if the minority party demands it. That’s not happening this time, and that’s what Democrats are complaining about.

Eric Baerren at MichiganLiberal.com was one of the few Michigan bloggers who didn’t succumb to the temptation to let the Democrats in the Michigan Legislature off the hook. He writes:

And, speaking of that, the House Democrats should have raised this last year when it was starting (probably they didn’t because Immediate Effect was previously no big deal because legislation had to have a bipartisan stamp on it in the first place). They didn’t.

There isn’t much that can be done about the laws passed last year, when the House Democrats should have complained loudly and bitterly about the misuse of Immediate Effect. They didn’t, and there’s not much to be done about it since the official record makes it look like a proper tally was taken. Now, however, they’re doing the right thing and pressing for actual vote tallies, which is what I frankly thought this was all about in the first place (Democrats denied the right to roll call votes, not some new and breathless conspiracy).

Anyway, to sum up … the House Democrats should have bitched last year…and Rachel Maddow continues to be a giant disappointment from a journalistic standpoint.

Rachel Maddow is not a giant disappointment. That honor goes to the six Democrats named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, their colleagues in the Senate and House and the Dem Caucus. This has been a brutal year for the poor and middle-class folks in our state with the passage of various pieces of legislation that have targeted those most in need. It appears that a high profile lawsuit filed shortly before election season begins is the best Michigan’s Democrats in the Senate and House have to offer in response. That’s a giant disappointment.