A controversial bill that would give legislative chambers power to intervene in any Michigan court case passed the House over protests from Democrats, who consider the legislation a breach of the separation of powers and an attempt to undermine incoming Attorney General Dana Nessel.

House members voted 58-50 to approve House Bill 6553, with House Democrats and five Republicans voting against the legislation.

If passed, House Bill 6553 would authorize both houses of the Legislature “to intervene in any action commenced in any court of this state whenever the Legislature or a house of the Legislature deems such intervention necessary in order to protect any right or interest of this state, or of that body.”

Currently, the legislature can request to intervene at the discretion of the judge on a case-by-case basis. HB 6553 would give the legislature a standing right to intervene in cases.

The bill was introduced Nov. 29 by Rep. Rob VerHeulen, R-Walker, and was fast-tracked through the state House during the legislature’s lame duck session. The House Government Operations Committee abruptly cleared the bill for a floor vote Tuesday after several interruptions from protesters, one of whom called the bill “un-American.”

VerHeulen said the bill is a “very simple” change that would not have any impact on the attorney general’s power.

“What the bill does not do is encroach on the office of the Attorney General,” he said, noting that the bill doesn’t mention the Attorney General position at all.

Democrats weren’t buying it. Rep. Robert Wittenberg, D-Oak Park, said he was fearful for the future of the state, calling the legislation an “unconstitutional power grab.”

Wittenberg said he highly doubted the bill would have come before the legislature if Republicans had been more successful in the statewide elections last month, and implied Republicans are now trying to limit the powers of incoming Democratic elected officials.

“The Constitution says the powers of government are divided into three branches...this bill will erode that foundation,” he said. “To me it’s troubling that I have to stand before you today and lecture you on civics.”

The bill could also create a situation where government bodies could intrude or impose on citizens' private interests, said Rep. Tim Greimel, D-Auburn Hills. He also suggested a scenario could occur where the state House and state Senate intervene on opposite sides of an issue, further confusing a court case.

The bill “tramples on the rule of law," and puts the legislature in a position to “impose undue governmental burden on private parties,” he said.

Rep. Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, said he understands the criticism that the bill was introduced shortly after the election. But he encouraged lawmakers to look beyond the timing, noting the Attorney General’s right to intervene in a court proceeding is a statutory, not constitutional, right.

He said the bill “provides this legislature a voice, an even greater opportunity to intervene in lawsuits more than we already do.”

“We need to have the opportunity to express our views in a courtroom," Chatfield said. “I believe the timing of this has led to unfair criticism. It’s incumbent on us to not let criticism or fear of opposition stop us from adopting what I consider to be sound public policy.”

Nessel opposes the proposed changes. Kelly Rossman, communications director for Nessel’s transition team, previously said Nessel is "deeply concerned and troubled by the hasty legislative efforts to push through a proposal that has not been properly vetted and appears to be an intentional effort on the part of some legislators to undermine the role of the state’s Attorney General.”

To become law, the bill would need to be approved by the full Senate and signed by Gov. Rick Snyder.