Should Michigan stick with daylight saving time? One lawmaker wants voters to decide
After months of Michigan's often brutal winters, longer lasting sunlight during the day is a sure sign spring is near.
And come Sunday, when daylight saving time begins and the clocks spring forward at 2 a.m., the sun will shine even later. It has been a yearly tradition in Michigan since 1973, when the state first began observing daylight saving time. Each year, the clocks move forward an hour in March and fall back an hour in November.
One lawmaker in Michigan, however, wants voters to decide whether the state should stick with the practice. Senate Bill 126, introduced by state Sen. Thomas Albert, R-Lowell, would place a question on the November 2026 ballot in Michigan asking voters to decide whether the state should continue to observe daylight saving time.
'Is switching to daylight saving time worth the headaches? Does it have any valid reason for continuing in this day and age? I personally would say 'no,' but obviously opinions differ. We should let the people of Michigan decide once and for all,' Albert said in a statement. SB 126 has 11 bipartisan co-sponsors.
In the U.S., daylight saving time traces back to World War I, when Congress passed the Standard Time Act in March 1918. At the time, proponents argued workers would have more sunlight time for recreation. There are stories of daylight saving time originally being intended to give farmers more hours of sunlight to work their fields, but farmers actually made up some of the strongest voices against the Standard Time Act in 1918, according to a 2016 New York Times article.
Daylight saving time: Love it or leave it? Tell us in a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters
It's not the first time a lawmaker in Michigan has opened debate over the value of observing daylight saving time — legislators have introduced bills to stop the practice in recent sessions, although the measures haven't advanced. In order for voters to get a say, SB 126 would need to pass each chamber of the Legislature and be signed into law.
Michigan voters have decided on daylight saving twice before. First, in 1968, a measure to observe daylight saving time was narrowly rejected by voters — falling short by 490 votes out of 2.8 million cast, according to a 1972 Ann Arbor Times article. In 1972, voters opted to observe the practice, adding Michigan to the list of states participating in daylight saving time.
Currently, Hawaii and Arizona (with the exception of the Navajo Nation) are the only states in the U.S. that don't observe daylight saving time.
From Nov. 2022: We're setting our clocks back again, so look to the western U.P. for inspiration
Contact Arpan Lobo: alobo@freepress.com
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan lawmaker wants voters to decide on daylight saving time
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
After Trump restores fort names, it's time to end the silly renaming wars
After President Donald Trump restores the names of military bases that once honored Confederates, the left and the right need to call a name-change truce. During Tuesday's speech at Fort Bragg (formerly Liberty, and before that, Bragg again), Trump announced that his administration would be reviving the names of Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Lee. Those forts were renamed during the left's crazed push, in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests in 2020, to purge public-property references to any figure it deemed controversial. Advertisement Much of the frenzy was a ridiculous exercise in woke revisionism: The hysteria got so bad that not even Teddy Roosevelt, a once-hero of progressivism, was safe. Trump has made his disdain for the whole gambit clear: One of his first acts as president was giving Mount McKinley its name back. But both the left and the right made the argument for nixing the names of traitorous Confederates from public property, especially in cases where the names were picked during the 1950s and '60s, purely out of hostility toward the Civil Rights movement. Advertisement So both sides should be happy to learn that the restored fort names technically won't honor Confederates. During Trump's first term, Congress passed the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which required the Pentagon's newly established Naming Commission to remove Confederate-linked names from Defense Department-owned property. So in order to give the forts their names back, the DOD is nodding to service members with identical surnames. That silly trick doesn't might go a bit too far: For instance, Fort Bragg is now named after a relatively unknown World War II private, Roland Bragg, instead of Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg. Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters But many of the new honorees do merit the recognition: Fort Rucker will now be named after heroic World War I Capt. Edward W. Rucker, instead of Confederate brigade commander Col. Edmund Rucker; Fort Robert E. Lee will now be simply 'Fort Lee,' paying tribute to Army Private Fitz Lee, a black Medal of Honor recipient who served in the Spanish-American War. This seems a fair compromise: The bases no longer reference men who fought against the Union, but locals will be able to call the forts by their long-held names. And Trump's move makes a point — the ever-escalating, Orwellian push to scrub flawed men from the history books needs to stop. Advertisement Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were shelled out to change the fort names once, and a similar amount will presumably be spent changing them back. 'Round and 'round we go. In fact, every time any publicly owned building, street or base goes through this process, it's a costly, divisive mess. Without a cease-fire, it'll never stop; any man or woman deemed worthy of honoring today could be vilified tomorrow, as the standards and values of the time change. Enough is enough: By finding a solution that should satisfy both sides, Trump is offering an opportunity to end the expensive, renaming war the left started. An opportunity neither side should miss.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
2 women marry in Mexico's embassy in Guatemala fueling a debate over same-sex marriage
GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — Two Mexican women were married inside the grounds of Mexico's embassy in Guatemala on Friday, sparking anger in a nation that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and debate over diplomatic sovereignty. The ceremony held in the embassy gardens was intended to celebrate Pride Month , which is celebrated every June, and the consulate said the marriage marked a step toward inclusion, respect and equality for all. 'We celebrate love without borders,' wrote the embassy in a post on the social media platform X. 'This is the first civil wedding of a same-sex couple at the Embassy of Mexico in Guatemala. It's a right granted to all individuals when both are Mexican citizens.' Shortly after, the ceremony sparked an outcry among conservative politicians in Guatemala, a largely Catholic country and one of a handful in Latin America that still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. While such marriages aren't explicitly prohibited, Guatemalan law only refers to unions between a man and a woman. Allan Rodríguez, the head of the VAMOS party bloc and ally of former president Alejandro Giammattei, was among those to reject the wedding, writing in a statement that 'although the act may be protected under external jurisdictions, it clearly contradicts Guatemala's current legal framework.' According to the congressman, the properties where embassies are located 'are not foreign territory; they merely enjoy diplomatic privileges' and therefore are not a part of the Mexican state. He claimed considering them as such would 'violate constitutional principles of sovereignty, territorial unity, and the rule of law.' Rodríguez, a former president of Congress, is sanctioned by the United States for obstructing anti-corruption efforts and undermining democracy in Guatemala. The office of progressive President Bernardo Arévalo said that under international law embassies like Mexico's 'have territorial immunity and operate under the jurisdiction of the state they represent.' 'In this case, it is an activity carried out by the Mexican Consulate in Guatemala and aimed at Mexican citizens. Therefore, it is exclusively the responsibility of the Government of Mexico, through its diplomatic representation, to comment or speak on the matter,' the embassy statement said. Still, debate only continued on, with Elmer Palencia, a congressman for the VALOR party, created by the daughter of a former dictator, called the marriage, 'not an act of inclusion, but a provocation.' 'Out of respect for the host country, Mexico should refrain from that narrative. Guatemalan sovereignty and social institutions deserve that respect,' he said. Constitutional lawyer Edgar Ortíz contradicted the conservative politicians, saying the marriage doesn't violate Guatemala's sovereignty and complies with the Vienna Convention, which establishes that what happens on diplomatic premises 'are not subject to the host state's jurisdiction.' He noted that Guatemala's constitution establishes that the country will govern following international principles. 'In no way are Guatemala's laws being altered; the effects of this marriage will occur in Mexico, which does recognize same-sex marriage,' he said. 'Rather,' he added, 'it is the Guatemalan lawmakers who are violating sovereignty, by interfering in Mexico's affairs and trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. That seems far more discourteous.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
2 women marry in Mexico's embassy in Guatemala fueling a debate over same-sex marriage
GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — Two Mexican women were married inside the grounds of Mexico's embassy in Guatemala on Friday, sparking anger in a nation that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and debate over diplomatic sovereignty. The ceremony held in the embassy gardens was intended to celebrate Pride Month, which is celebrated every June, and the consulate said the marriage marked a step toward inclusion, respect and equality for all. "We celebrate love without borders," wrote the embassy in a post on the social media platform X. 'This is the first civil wedding of a same-sex couple at the Embassy of Mexico in Guatemala. It's a right granted to all individuals when both are Mexican citizens.' Shortly after, the ceremony sparked an outcry among conservative politicians in Guatemala, a largely Catholic country and one of a handful in Latin America that still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. While such marriages aren't explicitly prohibited, Guatemalan law only refers to unions between a man and a woman. Allan Rodríguez, the head of the VAMOS party bloc and ally of former president Alejandro Giammattei, was among those to reject the wedding, writing in a statement that 'although the act may be protected under external jurisdictions, it clearly contradicts Guatemala's current legal framework.' According to the congressman, the properties where embassies are located 'are not foreign territory; they merely enjoy diplomatic privileges" and therefore are not a part of the Mexican state. He claimed considering them as such would "violate constitutional principles of sovereignty, territorial unity, and the rule of law.' Rodríguez, a former president of Congress, is sanctioned by the United States for obstructing anti-corruption efforts and undermining democracy in Guatemala. The office of progressive President Bernardo Arévalo said that under international law embassies like Mexico's "have territorial immunity and operate under the jurisdiction of the state they represent.' 'In this case, it is an activity carried out by the Mexican Consulate in Guatemala and aimed at Mexican citizens. Therefore, it is exclusively the responsibility of the Government of Mexico, through its diplomatic representation, to comment or speak on the matter," the embassy statement said. Still, debate only continued on, with Elmer Palencia, a congressman for the VALOR party, created by the daughter of a former dictator, called the marriage, 'not an act of inclusion, but a provocation.' "Out of respect for the host country, Mexico should refrain from that narrative. Guatemalan sovereignty and social institutions deserve that respect,' he said. Constitutional lawyer Edgar Ortíz contradicted the conservative politicians, saying the marriage doesn't violate Guatemala's sovereignty and complies with the Vienna Convention, which establishes that what happens on diplomatic premises 'are not subject to the host state's jurisdiction.' He noted that Guatemala's constitution establishes that the country will govern following international principles. 'In no way are Guatemala's laws being altered; the effects of this marriage will occur in Mexico, which does recognize same-sex marriage,' he said. 'Rather," he added, 'it is the Guatemalan lawmakers who are violating sovereignty, by interfering in Mexico's affairs and trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. That seems far more discourteous.'
