A plan being considered by Republican lawmakers to short-circuit two proposals now slated for the November ballot would be a "blatant" violation of the Michigan Constitution, several legal experts say.

The two legislative initiatives in question are Michigan One Fair Wage, which would gradually raise Michigan's minimum wage to $12 an hour and include tipped workers; and MI Time To Care, which would mandate employers let workers earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Both proposals are strongly opposed by business groups. To keep them off the ballot, some lawmakers have proposed adopting the initiatives this week and then amending them during the lame-duck session after the November election.

Such amendments could potentially "gut" the proposals, attorney Mark Brewer said during a press conference today for the Michigan One Fair Wage Group. Brewer also is the attorney for MI Time to Care.

If lawmakers opt for the adopt-and-amend plan, they likely would need to pass the initial bills by Friday, Sept. 7, the deadline by which the Secretary of State must certify questions on the ballot.

Brewer said such a maneuver would violate Article 2, Section 9, of the Michigan Constitution, which lays out the rules for ballot initiatives.

"The constitution does not allow the Legislature to adopt and then change in the same legislative session," Brewer said. "That is not an option."

He said the point is underscored by a 1964 opinion by then-Attorney General Frank Kelley that says amendments to laws resulting from ballot initiatives could occur in "subsequent sessions."

Three law professors interviewed by MLive said that Brewer is correct.

"If they did it, it would blatant disregard for the constitution. It would be a clear violation of Article 2, Section 9," said Mark Totten, a Michigan State University law professor and former Democratic candidate for attorney general.

He said there is no definitive ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, but that's only because the Legislature has never before attempted such a strategy.

"All you have to do is read the constitution," Totten said. "The text is clear."

Moreover, he said, it's just a matter of common sense.

"If it were permissible, the Legislature could do an end-run around ballot initiatives every time," Totten said.

He added the state constitution "reflects that people are uncomfortable with giving the Legislature the sole power to make laws. In fact, even just by talking about this, legislative leaders are showing we can't trust them to have that sole power."

Frank Ravitch, another MSU law professor, said the question is outside of his area of expertise. But, he said in an email, "I can say that what the legislature is trying to do sounds problematic given the text and historical application of the Michigan Constitution."

"Moreover, if this situation is addressed and opposed in an opinion by someone as highly regarded and knowledgeable as Frank Kelley, even if that opinion was written years ago, the legislature is likely overstepping its powers," Ravitch wrote.

Robert Sedler, a law professor at Wayne State University, said he also agreed with Brewer's interpretation.

"It would defeat the purpose of the initiative process for the legislature to turn around and amend the law at the same session," Sedler said in an email. "If the legislature wants to change the law, it must do it at the next legislative session."

Under state law, any amendments to a law approved as a ballot initiative would require the vote of three-quarters of state legislators. However, if legislators pass the proposals themselves, it would require a simply majority.

But waiting until next session to amend the laws could be a gamble: Because of term limits, Michigan will have a new governor next year and the composition of the Legislature is likely to change.

That's why lawmakers are eyeing the lame-duck session -- i.e., the period between the election and when new lawmakers take office.

"At that point, you have a Legislature that is unaccountable because you have a lot of people leaving and they're not seeking re-election," Brewer said. "I've seen a lot of damage done" during lame-duck sessions.

Added Brewer: "What I want to do is send a loud and clear message that if they adopt and amend" the minimum wage proposal this year, "we will sue. And we will win."