Michigan Policast for Monday, May 27, 2019
Segment One:  A ‘historic’ accomplishment – auto insurance “rate relief” for all Michigan drivers
* This fantastic episode of MIRS Monday features audio from House Speaker Chatfield, Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, and Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It also has a good segment with State Representative Isaac Robinson discussing his disappointment with how he thinks the legislation will affect Detroit.
* Michigan no-fault deal stops rate setting based on gender or education level
* Dan Gilbert could launch ballot petition on auto insurance: What it could mean
* Michigan’s new deal on auto insurance premiums: 10 things to know
* Bill to lower auto insurance OK’d by Legislature, sent to governor
The deal provides five options for drivers on the level of personal injury protection coverage they want. Under the deal, keeping the current unlimited coverage option would guarantee a 10% rate reduction in PIP coverage, which makes up about 50% of a typical insurance bill.
The other options include:
A 20% reduction in PIP rates for $500,000 in coverage
A 35% reduction for $250,000 in coverage
A 45% reduction for $50,000 in coverage
And a 100% reduction for senior citizens and drivers who have qualifying health insurance, such as Medicare or private insurance.
Segment Two:  AG Dana Nessel issues opinion that the lame duck ballot law is unconstitutional
* Anti-abortion petition groups face uncertainty after Nessel opinion
* Nessel Opinion Determines Portions of 2018 Election Law Unconstitutional
* Constitutionality of 2018 PA 608, amending Michigan Election Law [online copy of Nessel opinion #7319 ]
* Michigan bills would toughen rules to get proposals on ballot [coverage from the lame duck session 2018]
* Michigan AG: Lame-duck ballot drive law is unconstitutional
Want laws to withstand constitutional scrutiny? Pass better laws. R’s believe in strict construction of the Constitution. Until they don’t.
— Dana Nessel (@dananessel) April 1, 2019
Segment Three:  The Julian Assange indictments — what does this mean for the free press?