Bill
SB 474
SB 474 creates a presumption statutes follow procedural constitutional rules, overcome by clear, convincing evidence, with severability to preserve parts, not invalidate whole laws
Status: Referred to Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety (introduced Feb 19, 2025; referral recorded July 1, 2025)
Purpose
- SB 474 creates a statutory framework governing judicial review of challenges that allege a statute was enacted in violation of procedural requirements in the Michigan Constitution. Its principal aim is to (1) establish a rebuttable presumption that the legislature complied with constitutional procedural requirements when enacting a statute, (2) set the standard and scope for overcoming that presumption, and (3) direct how courts should apply severability if a procedural defect is found.
Key provisions
- Adds new section MCL 600.2113a to the Revised Judicature Act (1961 PA 236).
- Presumption of compliance: There is a rebuttable presumption that a statute’s enactment complied with any state constitutional procedural requirement.
- Burden and standard to rebut: The presumption can be overcome only by “clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.”
- Scope of admissible evidence: In deciding whether the presumption is rebutted, courts may consider evidence extrinsic to the enrolled bill and to legislative journal entries — but only if that evidence would otherwise be admissible under the rules of evidence.
- Severability directive: If a court finds a procedural constitutional requirement was not followed, the court must apply the severability rule in MCL 8.5 (the 1846 RS 1 severability rule). The bill explicitly contemplates, for example, severing a statute’s effective‑date provision from its substantive provisions rather than invalidating the entire statute.
Who and what would be affected
- Plaintiffs and litigants who challenge the validity of statutes on the ground that constitutional procedural steps were not followed (e.g., notice, reading, veto‑procedure, or other procedural requirements).
- Courts handling statutory‑enactment challenges: the bill prescribes the evidentiary standard and what evidence can be weighed.
- The Legislature: establishes stronger judicial deference to legislative enactments by presuming compliance and raising the evidentiary bar to invalidate statutes for procedural defects.
- Administrative and executive actors may be affected insofar as courts are directed toward severing limited provisions rather than invalidating entire statutes.
Practical effect and policy implications
- Raises the evidentiary burden on challengers (clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence) compared with a simple preponderance standard.
- While the bill tightens judicial invalidation of statutes (by presuming compliance), it simultaneously permits courts to consider extrinsic evidence beyond the enrolled bill and journal entries — but only under ordinary evidentiary rules.
- The severability instruction makes it more likely that courts will preserve substantive statutory provisions even when finding procedural errors, by severing effective‑date or other nonessential provisions.
Procedural / timeline notes
- Introduced (printed) Feb 19, 2025 (per bill information). Official referral recorded July 1, 2025 to the Michigan Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety. Additional committee action and hearings will determine further movement of the bill.
Text locations
- Amends: MCL 600.2113
- Adds: MCL 600.2113a (new section establishing presumption, evidentiary standard, admissibility rule, and severability requirement)
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
