As Gov. Gretchen Whitmer continues to face blowback after vetoing of nine bills passed when Democrats controlled the Legislature in 2023-24, a spokesperson said she backed the Senate Democrats in their legal efforts.
Bobby Leddy, communications director for Whitmer, said that the governor supported the Senate Democrats in the lawsuit against the House.
However, Whitmer made no public statements on the lawsuit, nor did her office join the suit or file briefs on the topic. When asked in October 2025 about the Court of Appeals ordering the House to present the bills and whether the governor was prepared to sign them upon presentation, her office said only it was reviewing the ruling.
“Our office consistently said the House Republicans needed to follow the law, which required the speaker to transmit the legislation to the governor. Further, our office was working closely with the Senate Dems on their suit because they were the party with standing to sue,” he said. “The Senate Dems won the lawsuit, which now requires the Legislature to transmit bills in the future (including new copies of the nine bills if passed by the Legislature). It was important for the Senate to take the suit to conclusion.”
A spokesperson for Senate Democrats declined to comment.
One Senate Democrat, speaking on condition they not be named, told of the comments that the governor’s office support the lawsuit, said: “We all supported the suit and were blindsided by the vetoes. That’s not exactly a sign of her office working with us.”
In January of 2025, Whitmer told reporters that House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, was entitled to a legal review on whether he had authority to present the bills from the prior Legislature. She said her office would “continue to wait and expect those bills to get presented shortly.” Those are the last direct comments from the governor or her staff on what they thought should happen with the bills. When Hall concluded his review in March, the governor’s office did not comment.
Leddy, when asked Monday why the governor did not declare Hall had an obligation to send the bills, said he didn’t know how the governor could have been more clear than what she said in January.
“I would refer you to exactly what she said,” he said. “She said, ‘I expect these to get presented shortly.’”
The most significant bills vetoed Friday after 18 months in limbo would have allowed corrections officers into the Department of State Police pension system and required public employers to pay more toward healthcare for certain public employees.
Leddy said Whitmer’s office “was pushing” for the corrections officers’ legislation letting them into the State Police pension system. It is unclear if the administration officially backed the bills in committee. Committee records for the 2023-24 term are no longer available. However, the House Fiscal Agency analysis of the legislation when it came out of committee does not list the Department of Corrections or the governor’s office as having a position. It notes several organizations supporting the bills.
Typically, a department will turn in a card for a bill in committee indicating support or opposition when it has a position.
Rep. Will Snyder, D-Muskegon, a sponsor of one of the pension bills, in a statement Friday, said Whitmer “always hesitated to take a supportive position,” on the legislation.
On Monday, Snyder said that if Whitmer was supportive of the bills, she would have signed them.
Another source pointed to a communication a State Police leadership staffer sent to senators in October 2024 regarding virtually identical Senate versions of the House bills that went to Whitmer and were vetoed. The staff member said the department had “significant concerns” with the bills and was asking senators to vote no.
Although it’s not unheard of for a governor to sign a bill over the objections of one of their departments, it is rare.
Snyder also mentioned HB 4173 of 2023, which was enrolled in December 2024 with no changes after more than a year sitting in the Senate. The bill created the sentencing commission. It contained seven references to actions that needed to be taken before Jan. 1, 2024.
“That bill also had multiple references to enactment dates that had already passed by the time it was signed,” Snyder said. “If she wanted to, she would signed any of the nine bills presented and the Legislature would have been tasked with fixing any potential implementation issues.”
Whitmer, in a veto letter, said she couldn’t sign the nine bills because the 18-month delay in getting them presented would create significant administrative issues, and the retroactive effect would be too costly.
One source pointed out a difference between the sentencing commission and the other bills was the sentencing commission’s scope was limited to appointing the commission. The bills the governor vetoed had more far reaching, complex language.
It’s never been clear why the House, then under Democratic control, did not present the nine bills to the governor before Republicans took control. Leddy said the conspiracy theory that there was a plot including the governor to prevent the bills from getting to her desk so she wouldn’t have to veto them is untrue.
Some groups were pleased with the governor’s vetoing of legislation requiring public employers to pay more toward healthcare. The Michigan Community College Association praised the veto on Friday. Michigan Association of State Universities CEO Dan Hurley said Monday the legislation would have been “very costly.”
“Michigan’s public universities are large and complex enterprises and require a strong financing partnership with the state to ensure that they provide high quality education to students,” he said in a statement. “These institutions require flexibility in negotiating, implementing, and paying for major expenditures such as employee healthcare. The FY 2027 state budget has been passed, and universities have already set their tuition rates for the upcoming year. Gov. Whitmer’s veto of the bill prevented HB 6058 from becoming an unbudgeted, unfunded, and untenable state policy.”
Many Democrats and activists were furious about the vetoes.
Ken Whittaker, executive director of Michigan United, on Facebook wrote Whitmer’s “legacy is shit.”
“Workers knocked doors for this governor. Union members gave money, gave time, and turned out the vote for this governor,” he said. “Black Detroiters helped put her in office. Buff wearing ‘Big Gretch.’ When those same people needed her signature, she handed them a veto and an excuse. You can’t run as a champion of labor and then veto relief for public employees. You can’t celebrate Black history and then deny voters the chance to fund the Charles H. Wright. You can’t claim to fight for struggling families and then let debt collectors take their disability checks. This wasn’t leadership or pragmatism. It was a cold political calculation, made at the expense of the people who built her career.”
Rep. Jimmie Wilson Jr., D-Ypsilanti, on X wrote, “most governors, on their way out, try to cement their legacy. This governor is definitely doing that…but in the opposite direction.”
Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, who supported vetoed legislation exempting public assistance, disability and worker’s compensation from garnishment to repay debts, tied Whitmer and House Republicans together on the issue.
“Governor Whitmer and Michigan House Republicans delivered a massive blow to teachers, public safety officers, corrections officers, and all public employees,” he wrote on Facebook. “This move enables and encourages future unconstitutional games by the Legislature and hurts regular people who are being squeezed by a tough economy.”
One source in the Department of Corrections said officers went from excitement about the Supreme Court ruling to heartbreak upon learning of the veto.
Asked Monday about the intense criticism toward the governor over the vetoes, Leddy pointed to Whitmer’s veto letter indicating it would have been impossible to implement the bills. The governor said the 18 months of delay would mean overwriting “law that has since gone into effect. Many of these bills have statutory deadlines that have long since passed.”
One Democrat, however, pointed to how the Supreme Court handled the adopt and amend lawsuit. After ruling in 2024 that the 2018 move by the Legislature to adopt voter-initiated laws raising the minimum wage and establishing paid sick time and then amend them was unconstitutional, the court created a new implementation schedule. This legislator said the same scenario could have occurred here had the governor signed the legislation and further motions been filed in the case.
