Sept. 5, 2025 | This Week in Government: Whitmer Calls for Early 2026 Special Election in 35th Senate District

After nearly eight months and regular calls by Republicans and even some Democrats to call a special election for the vacant 35th Senate District seat, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer finally made the announcement Friday, calling for a special primary and a special general election.

With the directive for a special election on Friday, Whitmer ended the nearly 250-day period of uncertainty since U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Bay City, resigned from the Senate on Jan. 3 before being sworn into Congress.

The special primary election was set for Feb. 3, 2026, and the special general election was set for May 5, 2026.

In Whitmer’s letter to the Department of State, the deadline for filing for the race was set at 4 p.m. on Sept. 30.

“Today, I am calling a special election for the 35th Senate District that represents parts of Bay, Midland, and Saginaw counties,” Whitmer said in a statement. “We have a lot of good work to get done before the end of next year. Michiganders want us to create jobs and grow the economy, invest in schools and boost literacy rates, and, of course, fix those damn roads. I look forward to working with the next state senator from this district to tackle these issues and more.”

The delay in calling the special election prompted repeated attacks from Republicans throughout the year, pointing to past precedent in which special elections have typically been called within days or a few weeks.

Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, in a statement took aim at the delay from Whitmer and the effect it has had on residents of the district.

“The 270,000 people of Michigan’s 35th Senate District are struggling to make it in Michigan, and for over 400 days, they will be without a state senator to fight for them,” Nesbitt said. “This is a complete failure of leadership from the governor, who should be ashamed for abandoning these hardworking families.”

More recently, several residents of the district filed a lawsuit with the Court of Claims seeking an order compelling Whitmer to announce the special election.

On Thursday, Whitmer filed a response asking for summary disposition in the lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs have no standing and that the constitutional separation of powers prevents courts from being able to issue mandamus or injunctive relief against a sitting governor (See Gongwer Michigan Report, August 28, 2025).

Friday’s call for the special election likely makes the lawsuit moot.

It also raises the question of who might file ahead of the September 30 deadline for the special election.

Three Democrats have already filed to run for the seat: Saginaw County Democratic Party Chair Brandell Adams of Bridgeport Township, Chedrick Greene of Saginaw, and Board of Education Chair Pamela Pugh of Saginaw.

Rep. Timmy Beson, R-Bay City, announced in late 2024 he was going to run for the seat.

There has also been speculation that Rep. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, might enter the race. In a Friday statement, Schuette called Whitmer’s timing for the elections a “case of politics at its worst.”

“We will have an opportunity to elect leaders who will fight for more accountability in government and better performing schools, a more affordable economy, and a stronger state,” Schuette said. “Change is ahead. In the coming days, I look forward to announcing how I plan to serve the people of our state and work collaboratively to solve the serious issues we face.”

The response from both sides of the political aisle to the announcement was swift in a flurry of statements.

“We are excited to elect another Democrat to fill the very large shoes left by Congresswoman Kristen McDonald Rivet,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel Jr. said. “Unlike Republicans, Michigan Democrats are a party by and for working Michiganders, and we stand ready to elect another champion for the families of the 35th Senate District. Game on.”

Greg Manz, a consultant with communications firm Wytherson Media who previously worked for the House Republican Campaign Committee and as press secretary for House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, took aim at the Democrats. He called the timing of the announcement a public relations disaster for Democrats.

“Republicans will flip this Senate seat not only because of the disrespect Gov. Whitmer has shown to 270,000 Michiganders but also because Senate Democrats’ priorities are out-of-touch as demonstrated by their bloated bureaucratic Big Brother budget,” Manz said.

Sen. Darrin Camilleri, D-Trenton, chair of the Senate Democratic caucus’s campaign committee for the 2026 cycle, welcomed the news.

“It’s an opportunity to show our Republican colleagues, from Donald Trump down to Lansing, that their agenda is out of step with Michigan families,” Camilleri said. “This election will be a chance to hold them accountable and keep Michigan moving forward.”

Sen. Roger Hauck, R-Mount Pleasant, said the governor’s decision was a political move that has done a disservice to the people of the 35th district.

“Let’s not pretend that finally calling the election was about principle – it was about politics from the very beginning,” Hauck said. “Her long-overdue action today doesn’t erase the months of neglect, the voices that went unheard, or the purely political display. I’m glad the people of the 35th District will finally get their seat back. But the delay speaks volumes.”

Michigan Forward Network spokesperson Mary Drabik agreed.

“Whitmer chose to ignore the district residents for months with vague commitments, only to leave them without representation for over 500 days by the time the election is certified,” Drabik said. “This egregious inaction is a new low for Gretchen Whitmer.”

The 35th Senate District consists of parts of Bay, Midland, and Saginaw counties and is one of the most evenly split and competitive Senate districts in the state.

Democrats hold a 19-18 majority in the Senate. If the Republicans were to win the seat there would be a 19-19 tie and Democrats would need the lieutenant governor to serve as a tie-breaking vote.

One fix lawmakers can tackle to make Michigan a more welcoming state for entrepreneurs and manufacturers, leaders of business groups told a House panel Thursday, is bringing back an old statute which banned state agencies from promulgating rules stricter than those in place at the federal level.

The House Rules Committee heard testimony on HB 4160, which would do just that, from leaders of the National Federation of Independent Business and the Michigan Manufacturers Association. Rep. Gina Johnsen, R-Odessa Township, who sponsored the bill, said the prior version of the law from 2018 acted as a check on state departments and agencies to prevent overregulation.

“That safeguard was repealed last term, and since then, agencies have had a blank check to go further than Washington without having to justify it. HB 4160 restores the guardrails,” Johnsen said. “It keeps the government accountable, stops needless red tape, and ensures Michigan families and businesses aren’t burdened with rules beyond what federal law already requires. This bill still gives agencies the ability to act in emergencies or to meet special education needs, but it makes sure that when they want to go further than federal standards, they have to prove why, not just say so.”

The bill does allow departments to appeal to the Legislature if they want to instate a rule more stringent than federal regulations, requiring an explanation of a “clear and convincing need to exceed the federal standard” be included in the regulatory impact statement departments must submit to the Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules during the promulgation process. Departmental representatives would presumably be asked to appear before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules for further discussion of proposals for stricter state rules.

NFIB Michigan Assistant Director Tim Langholz said bringing the 2018 policy back is especially critical in 2025, considering high costs across the board coupled with the cost of regulatory compliance for small businesses.

“Businesses need this type of common sense. They’re struggling to adhere to all the rules and regulations, as well as being IT for themselves, everything that needs to happen on a daily basis,” he said. “NFIB does a survey of its members and unreasonable government regulations is (one of) the top 10 concerns for small businesses. HB 4160 is straightforward. It gives a check on bureaucracy, ensuring that they’re taking into consideration all the implications that regulations have.”

For manufacturers competing in regional and national markets, bringing back restrictions on rule stringency would be a show of good faith from lawmakers that their presence in Michigan is prioritized, MMA Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy Mike Witkowski told committee members.

“The (old) framework reassured employers and investors that Michigan values competitiveness while still allowing agencies to exceed federal rules when a clear need is demonstrated (and) could safeguard our public health and our environment while remaining competitive for new growth and investment. Repealing the standard in 2023 sent the wrong message by signaling that federal rules are merely a starting point, and Michigan can and will impose additional requirements at any time,” Witkowski said. “This uncertainty undermines business confidence and makes it more difficult for manufacturers to justify investing here, rather than in more welcoming states.”

Many manufacturers may want to relocate to or expand operations in Michigan for supply chain or transportation reasons, Witkowski said, but balk at the state’s regulatory environment compared to neighbors like Indiana or Ohio. Putting the 2018 policy back in place, he said, would provide a higher degree of certainty for businesses considering what costs may look like years down the road.

“Investors considering Michigan now face questions about whether regulatory requirements will remain consistent, or whether our shifting political priorities will impose additional burdens that cannot be accounted for or planned on,” Witkowski said.

Johnsen’s bill was supported by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Detroit Regional Chamber, the Small Business Association of Michigan, Michigan Bankers Association, Americans for Prosperity, and the Home Builders Association of Michigan. Attorneys for Animals submitted a card in opposition but did not provide testimony.

The committee also heard testimony on HB 4039, sponsored by Rep. Pat Outman, R-Six Lakes, which would require state departments and agencies to rescind two administrative rules for each new rule they propose.

Outman said he designed the bill to mirror an executive order signed by President Donald Trump during his first term in 2017, which had the same parameters for federal rules and was rolled back in 2021 by former President Joe Biden. Trump issued a new version of the order upon taking office again earlier this year, this time directing federal agencies to slash 10 rules for every new rule proposed.

“We’ve seen this approach work before,” Outman said. “In President Trump’s first term, the federal government adopted a similar mandate, and several other states, including Georgia, Missouri, Arizona, and North Carolina have followed suit. Each has shown that limiting the unchecked growth of regulation fosters innovation and economic development.”

Outman said the bill would be about cutting “outdated, duplicative, or just overly burdensome” regulations, though the bill does not specify any criteria for selecting which rules to rescind. He said he purposefully designed the bill to be initially broad and hopes to “refine and polish” it in committee.

The committee did not vote on either bill, but support from the committee’s Republican majority will likely see them voted to the floor at a later date. Rep. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, who chairs the committee, likened Outman’s bill to the methods of a certain famous Japanese de-clutterer who inspired millions to toss household items that didn’t “spark joy.”

“(When) you look at our state government and our state rulemaking process, forcing our government to do a little Marie Kondo approach to how we’re promulgating rules in our state is very effective and very efficient and needed,” Schuette said.

House Speaker Matt Hall and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks met to discuss the state budget on Wednesday.

The meeting went poorly.

“We are not getting anywhere,” Hall, R-Richland Township, said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon. “We’re not getting anywhere because the Democrats in the Senate do not have a roads plan. I want to see their roads plan. Remember, they said we can’t do anything because we’ve got to see the Republican budget? … They see our budget. They see our roads plan… We have a state budget, and we don’t have a roads plan from the Senate.”

Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, shared a similarly frustrated-sounding statement on social media.

“I keep hearing that Speaker Matt Hall is calling me the problem. When you’re taking breakfast and lunch from kids to balance your budget, I’m going to have a problem with that. When you gut health care and supports for moms and babies, then yeah, I’m going to be a problem. When you’re cutting hundreds of police officers and services for crime victims, you better believe I’m going to cause a problem,” she said. “That’s his plan. And I pledge to the people of Michigan that I will be a ‘problem’ until Republicans start putting them first.”

Hall said the problem was that the Senate has not passed a road funding plan and has not provided transparency about legislative funding requests.

“The Senate doesn’t have a roads plan. The Senate refuses to do transparency in earmarks, and they’re trying to spend probably $6 billion more than we have,” he said. “They’re very unbalanced, and they’re spending more than we have and they have no priorities. So, that makes it a challenge.”

Senate Democrats, as recently as Wednesday, have said they can negotiate a road funding plan with the budget without presenting a proposal (see separate story).

The tough decisions should be made on their own before the House and the Senate negotiate, Hall said.

“We’ve shown them all of our cards,” he said.

Hall, along with House Appropriations Chair Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton, and House Appropriations Vice Chair Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, stood behind their budget during the Wednesday press conference, despite criticisms from the Senate and several stakeholder groups in the week since they introduced and passed their proposal.

“We didn’t have to gut it to cut it,” Bollin said. “We did a very deliberative process: reducing these (full-time employees), pulling money back into our projects. Those are not even painful. Those I wouldn’t even call cuts. I would call that really reinvesting in state taxpayer dollars. We need to do that.”

Bollin went on to defend the process by which the House introduced and then passed its budget bills.

“We never stated out of the gate that we were going through the traditional process. Yes, we turned things upside down. We turned them inside out. And I’m very proud of the work,” she said. “Our subcommittee chairs have been very, very involved in it and really helping us put forth a really good budget that is fiscally responsible. It’s structurally balanced, it targets all of the priorities of people across Michigan. We were on a mission for Michigan, and this budget does deliver that.”

The House Republican budget includes funding for roads, reduces debt, does not take on more long-term liabilities, and makes record investments in per-pupil funding for education, Bollin said, all for about $7 billion less than the budget proposed by the Senate and the executive office.

Bollin also said that items not included in the House budget are not cuts, but rather one-time funding that was not carried over from the last fiscal year.

“One-time funding is one-time funding. The intent is that it is not ongoing,” she said. “Why wouldn’t one-time funding be just one time? Because in the past, that is somewhat how Lansing has operated. They just called it one-time, but it is actually ongoing. We are trying to correct the problem…It’s not a cut– it’s just not a second time.”

Bollin also addressed the elimination of full-time employee positions.

She said during the budget process through conversations with state departments, the House learned that some departments were contracting unfilled positions.

“To me, that’s not very transparent, and as an appropriator, tell me that. Put it as another line item. Let’s be transparent and accountable,” she said. “Why don’t you have those positions filled? Sometimes we hear, ‘Oh, we couldn’t find anybody to fill them; they don’t like the wages, they may be too low.’ Whatever, could be a number or reasons. But most of those positions are vacant positions, and the ones that aren’t are filled by contract employees of subcontract companies. Let’s put them as a line item, and let’s show it.”

House Republicans could not say how many of the full-time employees eliminated from the budget were temporarily vacant while departments worked to hire someone to replace an employee that had left or found a new job.

“It’s very difficult to get this information from departments,” Bollin said. “We hope that they can partner with us, help us get more information on this. Certainly, if the department needs employees, we want to equip them. … We want people to believe in their state government and to get a response, and to get that out in a timely manner, efficiently, and actually get the right answer.”

Bollin said she remained committed to finishing the budget by Sept. 30, which is the Constitutional deadline.

“I look forward to continuing this journey,” she said. “I’m confident if there’s a will, we can get this done by Sept. 30. But there has to be a will to make cuts. This is not about growing government. The money simply is not there, and we can’t continue on this course.”

Senators in bipartisan votes passed legislation on Thursday that would enact state-level carbon sequestration regulations, which supporters touted as having potential environmental and business benefits, while opponents raised public health and energy cost concerns.

Members voted 29-7 in support of SB 394 and SB 396 and voted 31-6 to pass SB 395.

Collectively, the bills would create a regulatory framework and state permitting process. Provisions would also ensure input from landowners and those with mineral rights in project areas. The bills would also require the state to assume responsibility and liability for carbon sequestration sites after they have been completed.

Projects would be required to have a permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy to proceed.

Sen. Thomas Albert, R-Lowell, said he supported the bills because it made sense to have a state-level program, and it could help with enhanced oil recovery in the future.

Speaking on SB 396, he emphasized that his support for the proposal had nothing to do with the state’s renewable energy law changes passed last session, which he staunchly opposed.

“I am not against green energy in and of itself, but I am against government mandates, especially when they make energy more costly and unreliable for Michigan residents,” Albert said, admitting he had mixed feelings about the bills. “On one hand, the policy itself makes practical sense. On the other hand, looking at the bill in the context of our current energy policies in Michigan, the benefits become more convoluted. The mandates approved recently in Michigan are unworkable.”

Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, speaking against the bills, called carbon capture an expensive boondoggle.

“It’s certain to keep the party going for fossil fuel companies who don’t want to reckon with the damage to our health and our climate that their operations are causing,” Irwin said.

Irwin said the state should regulate carbon sequestration but should do it in an environmentally responsible way that reduces pollution, not generating more while storing some away.

Sen. Jonathan Lindsey, R-Coldwater, also opposed to the bills, saying he believed the purpose of the bills was to allow companies to cash in on federal tax credits for carbon sequestration, which max out at $85 per ton.

“I don’t think for a minute that we would be standing here debating this legislation today if it weren’t for the case that people who are very important, very influential, and have a lot of resources on both sides of the political aisle know that if the state of Michigan passes our own version of carbon sequestration regulation, that that allows them a fast-track to tap into federal tax credits,” Lindsey said.

Several floor amendments offered for SB 396 were rejected prior to passage, including provisions that would have added more environmental and public health protections, raised the disposal fee and change where revenues collected from fees would be directed.

Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield Township, spoke to amendments she and Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-West Bloomfield, offered to SB 396.

“I also know that carbon capture isn’t the perfect technology, and that there are some simple things that we could add to these bills that would make carbon capture work better and also continue to allow it,” Shink said. “None of these amendments would prevent carbon capture from happening in Michigan.”

Bayer said stronger safeguards are needed if the state is to allow carbon sequestration and that the package as written falls short.

“They just don’t have strong enough safeguards for our families, our water, and the future of the state,” Bayer said. “If we’re going to implement carbon capture in Michigan, we need to make sure that it actually works.”

She pointed to examples environmental groups noted in committee hearings on the bills concerning leaking infrastructure at carbon sequestration sites that have caused public health issues.

Environmental groups in statements were displeased with the Senate’s votes on Thursday.

“These bills put all liability for closed projects on the backs of residents and deny Michiganders full recourse against owners of active sequestration sites,” Charlotte Jameson, chief policy officer with the Michigan Environmental Council, said. “It is ironic that in the middle of a state budget crisis, out decision-makers are approving bills that could blow massive holes in future budgets.”

Ben Poulson, state government affairs director for the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, said the bills could increase energy costs for residents and pass future costs of sequestration sites on to taxpayers.

“Instead of creating excuses for fossil fuel plants to pollute even more, we should be stopping carbon emissions at the source by expanding cleaner, more affordable renewable energy sources that we know will save ratepayers money,” Poulson said.

John Sellek, spokesperson for the Michigan SUCCESS Coalition, which is supportive of the bills, in a statement thanked the Senate for moving the legislation this week.

“Thanks to this bipartisan victory, Michigan no longer has to stand by watching neighboring states protect their air with this high-tech technology while also snagging economic investment and good paying jobs,” Sellek said. “We thank the Senate for approving the three-bill package and look forward to House action.”

The Capitol lawn was covered in neon yellow and orange on Wednesday as road construction workers and labor unions rallied to call on lawmakers to pass a long-term funding plan for road and bridge construction in the upcoming budget.

The rally featured union and construction workers telling their own stories of both working and driving on their local roads, voicing concerns about losing their jobs, or seeing the road conditions take a hit without it.

Jon Hudgins, a member of the Operating Engineers 324 Journeyman and employee of M&M Excavating, said with his wife and three kids, his career is about providing for them with the fair wages and benefits he receives now. But, with no funding plan, his job stability is in danger, he said.

Hudgins said he has worked in other states in the past and “their roads are better, their bridges are stronger, and their workers are busier,” and Michigan just needs to catch up not with a “band aid” but with a long-term solution.

“I don’t want to leave my state to do my job, and none of us do,” Hudgins said. “We want to stay here, build here and raise our families here, but if Lansing can’t pass a real road funding plan, skilled workers will have no choice but to leave.”

Megan Jaglowski, a carpenter with Hardman Construction, said while she is still an apprentice, it does not take 20 years to see the infrastructure falling apart across the state. She said the damage hasn’t come out of nowhere but it’s a result of “years of neglect.”

“The people in charge sat on their hands while the rest of us kept it running,” Jaglowski said. “Am I right? Or am I right? They ignored it, we carried it, and now they want us to patch up decades of neglect with scraps and excuses.”

She said road workers aren’t just about fixing problems but preventing disasters and keeping the economy moving. She said the workers aren’t here for a “handout” instead wanting real investment instead of more speeches on what the state needs.

Arlandar Washington, a business manager at LiUNA Local 355, also called out the Legislature for “finger pointing,” saying instead they need to start road paving and bridge building.

“We need the legislators in Lansing to turn off the scoreboard and take a step in the right direction,” Washington said.

Lansing Mayor Andy Schor was also in attendance, saying one of the things he hears from residents every day is about a road not being fixed in their neighborhood or constantly hitting potholes on local streets. He said he spends a lot of the time explaining to people that there is a need for $300 million in Lansing alone to fix the local roads after putting in $3.5 million.

“I don’t want to hear from folks about busted axles,” Schor said. “I don’t want to hear from folks about the freeze-thaw and breaking up the potholes. I’ll fix your pothole in 48 hours, but that doesn’t fix the road.”

While the House passed a road funding plan back in March that boosted funding by $3 billion, which is in step with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer‘s major goal of getting her Mi Road Ahead Plan through for long-term funding, the Senate has not yet acted on a road funding plan.

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said in a Wednesday press conference that the Senate needed to pass a roads plan to move things forward.

“I’ll just point out the Senate has no roads plan. … We’ve had a roads plan for months,” Hall said. “I don’t think it should be our responsibility to tell them what their roads plan is. … If they don’t have a roads plan, they can adopt our roads plan.”

Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, in a floor speech Wednesday laid the blame for a lack of a road funding plan at the feet of legislative Democrats. He said Democrats have taken the workers like those at the Capitol for granted.

“Politicians who insisted they would fix the damn roads haven’t done a damn thing for six years,” Nesbitt said, saying the lack of action is a reason some Michigan residents have turned from the Democrats.

He urged the Senate to take up the road funding plan passed earlier this year by the House.

Sen. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, repeated comments made to reporters last month that there does not need to be road funding plans from each chamber before beginning negotiations.

“The governor has a plan. House Republicans have a plan. We can get in a room and negotiate that,” Singh said. “The idea that there has to be three, four, five, competing plans is not needed. What is needed is people to be in the room and have a real discussion.”

Singh said sometimes one chamber takes the lead on an issue in negotiations with the governor and that can be the case with a road funding deal. He added that the Senate has concerns with both the governor’s plan and the House plan, but those issues can be addressed at the negotiating table.