City of Dearborn v. Bd. of Sup'rs for Wayne Cnty.

• Citation: 266 N.W. 304,275 Mich. 151
• Decision Date: 06 April 1936
• Docket Number: No. 135.,135.
• Parties: CITY OF DEARBORN et al. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS FOR WAYNE COUNTY et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

275 Mich. 151

266 N.W. 304

CITY OF DEARBORN et al.

v.BOARD OF SUP'RS FOR WAYNE COUNTY et al.

No. 135.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 6, 1936.

Suit by the City of Dearborn and other cities against the Board of Supervisors for Wayne County and others. From an adverse decree, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, with directions.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Theodore J. Richter, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Walter S. Rae, of Dearborn, for appellants.

Sweetman G. Smith, of Detroit, for appellees Board of Sup'rs and Wayne County.

Raymond J. Kelly, Corp. Counsel, and James R. Walsh and John H. Witherspoon, Asst. Corp. Counsels, all of Detroit, for appellee City of Detroit.

FEAD, Justice.

Plaintiffs, municipal corporations in Wayne county, filed petition for declaration of rights, particularly praying that Act No. 131, Pub.Acts 1935, providing for representation of cities upon county boards of supervisors, be declared unconstitutional. The court held the law valid.

Under 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 2263, governing home rule cities, a graduated scale of representation of cities upon boards of supervisors, based upon population, was provided. Act No. 131 re-enacts section 2263, but adds a proviso which raises the question in the case: ‘Provided, That in counties whose cities shall have a total representation upon their board of supervisors of seventy-five or more representatives under the aforesaid provisions, the number of representatives of cities on the board of supervisors in such counties on and after the Tuesday following the second Monday in April, in the year nineteen hundred thirty-six, shall be as follows: Cities having less than fifteen thousand population shall have one representative on the board of supervisors of the county; cities having over fifteen thousand and not more than thirty thousand population, shall have two representatives; cities having over thirty thousand and not more than sixty thousand population, shall have three representatives; cities having over sixty thousand and not more than one hundred thousand population, shall have four representatives; cities having over one hundred thousand and not more than five hundred thousand population, shall be entitled to one additional representative for each additional fifty thousand population or fraction thereof; cities having five hundred thousand or more population shall be entitled to such number of representatives as will give such cities a representationequal to fifty-seven percent of the total number of representatives on the board of supervisors from all the cities and townships of such county, and for any fraction resulting in the determination of the number representing fifty-seven percent such city shall be entitled to one additional representative.’

It is conceded that Wayne county is the only county in the state which has 75 or more city members on its board of supervisors, and Detroit is the only city having 500,000 or more population. The Wayne county board of supervisors has 151 members, of which Detroit has 79, a proportion of about 52 per cent. Under the proviso, the total membership would be 83, Detroit with 47 members, or 57 per cent., and the proportionate representation of all plaintiffs would be reduced.

Plaintiffs contend the act (proviso) is invalid on several grounds, but we need consider only one- that it violates article 5, § 30, of the Constitution: ‘ Local or Special Acts; Referendum. Sec. 30. The Legislature shall pass no local or special act in any case where a general act can be made applicable, and whether a general act can be made applicable shall be a judicial question. No local or special act, excepting acts repealing local or special acts in effect January one, nineteen hundred nine and receiving a two-thirds vote of the Legislature shall take effect until approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon in the district to be affected.’

The Legislature has enacted a number of laws upon a population basis and without referendum requirement, which, in praesenti, could apply only to the county of Wayne or the city of Detroit. Some of them have been before this court. The principles upon which they have been sustained as general laws or defeated as local acts are well established in this state and elsewhere.

The first test to be applied is whether population has a reasonable relation to the purpose of the statute. In Mulloy v. Wayne County Board of Supervisors, 246 Mich. 632, 635, 225 N.W. 615, 616, the distinction is pointed out: ‘Clearly, because of its provision as to population, the act applies to Wayne county only. If it is a reasonable and logical basis of classification considering the subject of legislation, unquestionably a specified population may be made the test of the applicability of a general legislative act; and under such conditions the act will not be construed to be invalid as local legislation. Hayes v. Auditor General, 184 Mich. 39, 150 N.W. 331. But where the subject of legislation is such that population has no obvious relation to the purpose sought to be accomplished, an attempt to make the application of the legislative act dependent on population is unwarranted and amounts to local legislation. Attorney General v. Lacy, 180 Mich. 329, 146 N.W. 871.’

Upon this test, statutes have been sustained in People v. Brazee, 183 Mich. 259, 149 N.W....