Michigan House Bill HR0113

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/21/25
• Passed: 5/21/25

Caption

A resolution urging the Michigan Senate to request the return of Senate Bills 163, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, and 181, the Senate budget appropriations bills for fiscal year 2026.

Summary

House Resolution 113 is a nonbinding resolution urging the Michigan Senate to ask for the return of its fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills, Senate Bills 163, 164, 165, 167, and 169 through 181. The resolution argues that the Senate-passed budget exceeds projected revenues by about $986.5 million and therefore fails to meet the balanced-budget requirement in Article IV, Section 31 of the Michigan Constitution. It also asserts that the budget would underfund Medicaid by $500 million and childcare by $30 million, with negative consequences for health coverage and working families. The resolution does not change appropriations law by itself, but it is intended to pressure the Senate to withdraw and reconsider its budget package before final enactment. Its practical effect is political: it formally communicates the House’s position that the Senate budget is unconstitutional, unbalanced, and harmful to key services, and it directs copies to Senate leadership and the Lieutenant Governor. The measure passed the House on third reading by a vote of 58-48 on May 21, 2025.

Impact

HR 113 does not amend the budget statutes or appropriate funds directly; instead, it expresses the House’s opposition to the Senate’s FY 2026 budget bills and urges the Senate to reclaim them for further work. If acted upon, the resolution could delay budget negotiations and influence revisions to the appropriations bills, especially on Medicaid and childcare funding. Its legal significance lies in invoking the Michigan Constitution’s balanced-budget requirement, but the resolution itself has no binding effect on state law.

Sentiment

The sentiment reflected in the resolution and the House vote is strongly critical of the Senate-passed budget and supportive of a more restrained, balanced approach. Supporters frame the measure as a constitutional and fiscal responsibility issue, emphasizing the need to avoid overspending and protect core services. The 58-48 vote suggests a partisan divide, with the resolution advancing on a narrow majority rather than broad bipartisan consensus.

Contention

The main points of contention are whether the Senate budget truly exceeds available revenues, whether it violates the state constitution, and how to balance fiscal restraint against funding priorities. Proponents of the resolution argue that the Senate budget is nearly $1 billion over projected revenue and underfunds Medicaid and childcare, risking coverage losses and harm to families. Opponents likely view the resolution as a political maneuver against the Senate budget process and may dispute the fiscal assumptions, the characterization of the budget as unconstitutional, or the claim that it would necessarily reduce services.