A resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives.
Summary
House Resolution 249 would amend the Michigan House of Representatives’ Standing Rules, specifically Rules 40 and 52. The resolution makes several procedural changes to bill introduction and sponsorship, including requiring bills to be approved by the Legislative Service Bureau, delivered to the Clerk in printed form, and allowing a caucus leader to deliver introduction copies when a sponsoring member has a family or medical exigency. It also clarifies when members may add or remove co-sponsorship signatures and requires the Speaker to refer bills and joint resolutions to committee within one House legislative day, with limited authority to change referrals by written notice.
The resolution also revises the House’s appropriations rule to require disclosure of sponsor and recipient information for legislatively directed spending items and to apply existing Management and Budget Act disclosure requirements to items requested or included before January 1, 2026. Most notably, it would bar appropriations bills or conference reports containing earmarks for municipalities or universities that maintain policies viewed as obstructing federal immigration enforcement, and would require those recipients to submit their immigration-related policies plus written certifications of compliance with federal immigration law before such spending items could be brought to a vote.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would change internal House procedure rather than amend the Michigan Compiled Laws directly. It would affect how bills are introduced, how co-sponsorship is handled, how quickly measures are referred to committee, and how appropriations bills with legislatively directed spending items are disclosed and considered. The immigration-related provisions would impose additional House voting prerequisites on earmarks directed to municipalities and universities, potentially affecting local governments and higher education institutions seeking state-directed funding.
Sentiment
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or member positions in the available record. Based on the text alone, the resolution appears to reflect a generally procedural and enforcement-oriented approach, with a strong emphasis on transparency in earmarks and compliance with federal immigration law. The inclusion of detailed disclosure and certification requirements suggests support for tighter House control over appropriations and sponsorship practices.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the immigration-enforcement conditions attached to appropriations for municipalities and universities, which could be viewed by supporters as ensuring compliance and by opponents as penalizing so-called sanctuary policies or limiting local autonomy. Another possible area of dispute is the earmark disclosure and certification regime, especially the requirement that recipients provide policy documents and formal assurances before a vote. The changes to bill introduction deadlines, co-sponsorship rules, and referral timing are more procedural, but they could still draw concern from members who view them as restricting flexibility in the legislative process.