Michigan Republicans’ bait-and-switch on minimum wage laws ran afoul of the constitution, court rules

In a 4-3 decision, the court said Republican lawmakers violated the state constitution.

The laws were the result of a 2018 petition drive that collected more than 280,000 signatures.

The Legislature had options, including putting the proposed laws on the ballot for voters to decide or simply adopting them. GOP lawmakers chose to approve them — but then watered them down after that year’s election, before Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer took over in 2019.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed the rollback legislation before he left office, triggering years of legal challenges that finally reached a climax at the state’s highest court.

“Allowing the Legislature to bypass the voters and repeal the very same law it just passed in the same legislative session thwarts the voters’ ability to participate in the lawmaking process,” Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote.

Welch and three justices who joined her opinion are aligned with the Democratic Party, while three justices who disagreed are aligned with the Republican Party.

Michigan’s minimum wage now is $10.33 per hour; less for workers in restaurants and other tip industries. It would have increased to $12 by 2022 under the plan in the petition drive.

The Supreme Court said a new wage schedule, adjusted for inflation as determined by the state treasurer, must take effect next February and then go up in subsequent years. The law also will gradually eliminate a lower minimum wage for tipped workers in restaurants.

The sick leave provisions mean many businesses will be required to provide workers with paid time off.

The Michigan Chamber, a statewide business organization, expressed disappointment with the “court’s activism.”

But labor unions and activists praised the decision. Republicans “quite literally stole out of the pockets of Michigan workers” with the five-year legal fight, Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber said.

In a dissent, Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement acknowledged there’s reason to be frustrated by what lawmakers did, but there’s nothing in the constitution to prevent it, and “as tempting as it might be to step into the breach, this court lacks the power to create restrictions out of whole cloth.”