Mackinac Center Lawsuit Challenges Billions in Michigan "Pork-Barrel" Spending, Oral Arguments Set for Next Week

Lansing, Michigan – The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has filed a brief in its ongoing lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Labor, challenging the constitutionality of billions of dollars in state spending designated for "pork-barrel" projects. Oral arguments in the significant case are scheduled for next Tuesday, bringing the fiscal accountability debate to a critical juncture.

The lawsuit, initiated by the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, contends that Michigan lawmakers have routinely bypassed a constitutional requirement mandating a two-thirds supermajority vote in both legislative chambers for appropriations of public money or property for "local or private purposes." This provision, enshrined in Article IV, Section 30 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 and dating back to the 1850 Constitution, aims to prevent political patronage and ensure transparent allocation of taxpayer funds.

According to the Mackinac Center, billions of dollars have been appropriated for specific local and private entities without the necessary two-thirds approval. Examples cited in their lawsuit include $1.5 million for Jimmy John’s Field in Utica and $1 million for Jackson Field in Lansing, both baseball stadiums. Funds have also reportedly gone to a cricket field, a curling center, a distillery, labor unions, and various other private organizations.

Patrick Wright, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, stated, "Michigan’s budget process fell short of the transparency and accountability that taxpayers deserve." He added that decisions were "too often made behind closed doors, shaped by political connections rather than the broader public interest." The Center asserts that taxpayers have a right to know how their money is spent.

The state's Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity has filed a brief in response, arguing that courts cannot prevent the executive branch from issuing earmark payments, even if those payments are deemed illegal. The Mackinac Center counters that the judiciary's role is precisely to intervene in such instances of alleged lawbreaking. A ruling in favor of the Mackinac Center could impact numerous past appropriations and reshape Michigan's budgeting practices, potentially restoring a constitutional safeguard against public waste.