House Bills 6034 and 6035 would respectively create the Public Library Freedom to Read Act and the District Library Freedom to Read Act, which do not apply to school libraries. Cosponsor of the bills state Rep. Carol Glanville, D-Walker, said the bills are nonpartisan and aim to both support librarians and the communities they serve.

“Local control ensures that our libraries remain flexible, community oriented, and in tune with the people that they serve,” Glanville said in testimony before the committee Wednesday. “[The bills] will protect local control in our libraries by establishing clear standards and processes for selecting and withdrawing materials from collections. By protecting our libraries, we’re not just preserving those books, we are supporting freedom, community, and the values that unite us.”

Kyle Zawacki from the ACLU of Michigan addressed concerns about the potential inclusion of inappropriate materials, pointing out that while the bills prohibit granting reconsideration or withdrawal requests based on the subject matter, content, or viewpoint of the material, there is an exception made for obscenity or content otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment.

“This ensures that library collections remain free of illegal content while protecting them from subjective judgments about what is considered offensive or disagreeable,” Zawacki said. “House Bill 6034 and 6035 established a framework that respects professional librarians expertise, protects intellectual freedoms, and affirms the right of every individual to access a diverse range of ideas.”

The bills also require that local citizens requesting the withdrawal of certain materials must read, watch, or view the material in full before making the request. After a local or district library has made a decision on contested materials, the library cannot consider a request for reconsideration of the same material within 365 days after that determination.

President-elect of the Michigan Library Association Jenny Marr supported these measures as a way to reduce excessive and frivolous book banning requests.

“We don’t have a problem with having meaningful discussions about our collections,” she said. “What makes our jobs difficult is the constant inundation of requests on the same titles, and often from people who don’t live in our community, haven’t actually looked at the book but for their own reasons are trying to engage in cancellation and censorship.”