It has been an interesting last couple weeks for ballot initiatives.

First, the disheartening news: last month, the State Board of Canvassers declined to certify the signatures for a ballot proposal that would cap payday lending interest rates at 36%. Too many signatures were deemed either invalid in themselves or appeared on petition sheets that were not filled out correctly.

The payday lending ballot initiative enjoyed popular support, including that of the Michigan League for Public Policy.

And, if other states’ experiences are an indicator, the proposal would have likely passed. Payday lenders in Michigan charge between a 175% and 402% annual percentage rate and often trap borrowers in a debt cycle. While the ballot initiative’s disqualification is a disappointment, the League will continue to support legislative and other efforts to protect payday lending consumers, including establishment of an interest cap.

The same week that the payday lending initiative was rejected, a Court of Claims judge ruled that, when Michigan’s Legislature used a tactic informally called “adopt and amend” to prevent the 2018 minimum wage and paid sick leave proposals from reaching the ballot in their original form, it violated the state constitution.

The Legislature had passed bills with wording identical to the two ballot initiatives, which under Michigan’s constitution puts a ballot proposal into law without requiring the governor’s signature.

But they did so with the intent of weakening their provisions after the 2018 November election.

As expected, during the “lame duck” session that year, the Legislature amended the new laws to greatly reduce the worker population that would be eligible for paid sick leave and made the minimum wage increases much smaller — and then-Gov. Rick Snyder happily signed the bill changes.

The amended paid leave and minimum wage laws were significantly weakened from the ballot proposal that was intended to go to the voters in November 2018.

While the original paid sick leave proposal would have required all workers to be covered, the amended law exempts employers with fewer than 50 employees — leaving out a large part of Michigan’s workforce. The original minimum wage proposal would have raised Michigan’s regular minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020, but the amended one does not raise it to that level until 2030.

Especially significant is that the original proposal would have raised the minimum wage for tipped workers to the level of the regular minimum wage by 2024, whereas the gutted law keeps it at just 38% of the regular minimum wage.

Naturally, there were unresolved questions about how soon the Court of Claims ruling would take effect, and business groups vowed to appeal it. Ten days later, referencing concern about “the ability of employers and the relevant state agencies to immediately accommodate the changes,” the same judge delayed implementation of the ruling for 205 days (until February 2023).

If the July 19 ruling is appealed to a higher court, the court could lengthen the stay of implementation or overturn the ruling altogether.

Prior to the establishment of the 205-day stay, state officials said that, when the new policies go into effect, the minimum wage levels will increase to the level they would have been for that year in the original ballot proposal. In other words, if they were to have gone into effect this year, the minimum wage would directly go from the current $9.87 per hour to $12 an hour and the tipped minimum wage would go from $3.84 to $10.10 per hour.

A lot is in flux with these proposals and their legal standing right now, as there is still a possibility that a higher court chooses to hear an appeal.

But, where things stand now, the original ballot proposals will go into effect in February 2023.

The League was proud to support both of those initiatives in 2018, and we strongly opposed the Legislature’s maneuvers to weaken them. The Court of Claims ruling is good news for workers, but it is also good news for policy advocates, and we hope wherever the legal process goes, the original intent of the initiatives and the Michigan voters who signed those petitions is upheld.

Peter Ruark is senior policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy.