Witness warns Michigan emergency powers give officials broad unilateral authority; panel discusses pandemic plan

The Oversight Subcommittee on Weaponization of State Government heard testimony that Michigan’s emergency authorities can vest broad, indefinite lawmaking powers in executive-branch officials — a situation the witness said risks future "weaponization" of government.

Michael Van Beek, director of research at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, told the subcommittee the state’s emergency regime contains weak triggers, vague statutory language and few procedural constraints. "No person exercising powers of one branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another branch except as expressly provided in this constitution," Van Beek quoted of the Michigan Constitution and used the line to argue that the existing emergency statutes permit executives and agency directors to exercise lawmaking authority that the legislature should retain or more tightly define.

Van Beek summarized four takeaways: separation of powers is the primary guardrail against government weaponization; unilateral executive control through emergency authority undermines that guardrail; several Michigan statutes permit expansive unilateral control "with the stroke of a pen"; and the legislature should adopt and require a detailed emergency pandemic response plan.

Why this matters: Van Beek and several lawmakers said vague statutory triggers and the lack of durational or procedural limits created legal and public confusion during the COVID-19 response. Van Beek told the committee he reviewed Michigan law and identified roughly 30…