Apparently the well-intentioned folks trying to un-do the state's Right to Work law have been advantaging themselves of the Medical Marijuana law.
There appears to be no other justified explanation as to why they are asking the courts to bounce the law because the state capitol was locked during a portion of the fight over RTW.
If that is the best the ACLU, organized labor and one journalist can come up with, somebody needs to re-enroll in the Perry Mason law school.
The Michigan Education Association was the first to file suit last December, but now others have joined but have added nothing new to the legal briefs other than to deplore the whole process.
Yes the building was locked. Yes some protestors could not get in. Yes the issue was debated without committee hearings and rushing a "bill through a lame duck session is a bad way to make public policy." All those are true but if there is a legal hook somewhere in there for a judge to outlaw what lawmakers did, the plaintiffs have better eye sight than the rest of the free world.
Jamming bills through a lame duck session is hardly unconstitutional, although you could make a case for making it so, but nothing on the books attests to that now.
In a statement the opponents decry the "shameful" nature of the debate, but it's hard to conclude that any judge could find that to be illegal. Heck if we took all the shameful things a legislature did over the years, they would all be in jail.
All those in favor, say aye.
The suit is based on a violation of the Open Meetings act which indicates that public sessions involving lawmakers be posted 18 hours before they happen. There does not appear to be anything in there about locking the capitol.
But stranger things have happened. The lower court might agree. But even if it does, do these plaintiffs for one minute believe a certain state supreme court, under the majority rule of the GOP, would for one second toss out this law?
Unless, of course, the justices are obliging themselves of the Medical Marijuana law, too.