Committee for Constitutional Reform v. Secretary of State of Mich., Docket No. 78117

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; WILLIAMS; Archer
• Citation: 425 Mich. 336,389 N.W.2d 430
• Docket Number: Docket No. 78117
• Decision Date: 11 July 1986
• Parties: The COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM; an unincorporated ballot question committee; Patrick T. Reid, Treasurer; Kevin Hayes; Nancy Gelinas; George Fulkerson; George E. Bushnell, Jr.; Patrick J. Keating; M. Richard Knoblock; Gordon W. Britten, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, Richard H. Austin; Stephen C. Bransdorfer; Lucille S. Taylor; Michael Pyne; and Bernice Shields, members of the Michigan Board of Canvassers, Defendants-Appellees. 425 Mich. 336, 389 N.W.2d 430

Page 430

389 N.W.2d 430 The COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM; an unincorporated
ballot question committee; Patrick T. Reid, Treasurer;
Kevin Hayes; Nancy Gelinas; George Fulkerson; George E.
Bushnell, Jr.; Patrick J. Keating; M. Richard Knoblock;
Gordon W. Britten, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, Richard H. Austin; Stephen
C. Bransdorfer; Lucille S. Taylor; Michael Pyne;
and Bernice Shields, members of the
Michigan Board of Canvassers,
Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 78117.
425 Mich. 336, 389 N.W.2d 430 Supreme Court of Michigan. July 11, 1986.

[425 MICH 337] Thomas E. Brennan, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen. and Gary P. Gordon and Richard P. Gartner, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, for defendants-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The constitution of this state, Const.1963, art. 6, Sec. 2 provides:

"The supreme court shall consist of seven justices elected at non-partisan elections as provided by law. The term of office shall be eight years and not more than two terms of office shall expire at the same time. Nominations for justices of the supreme court shall be in the manner prescribed by law. Any incumbent justice whose term is to expire may become a candidate for re-election by filing an affidavit of candidacy, in the form and manner prescribed by law, not less than 180 days [425 MICH 338] prior to the expiration of his term. (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs have requested the Court of Appeals and this Court to extend the requirement that elections for justices of this Court be nonpartisan to the process for nominating candidates for that office. ¹

Page 431

The Court of Appeals held that the "debates of the Constitutional Convention and the 'Address to the People' make it clear that Const 1963, art 6, Sec. 2 does not require the legislature to provide for non-partisan nomination of candidates for the Supreme Court." We agree that the delegates voting for the constitutional provision had the intent that the Legislature might continue the then-existing system which combined partisan nomination of candidates with nonpartisan election. That intent was communicated to the electorate in the wording of the constitutional provision and the Address to the People. In adopting the constitution, the electorate adopted that intent. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I

Plaintiffs filed an original action for mandamus ² [425 MICH 339] in the Court of Appeals on February 13, 1986. ³ The complaint identifies plaintiff Committee for Constitutional Reform as an unincorporated ballot question committee with more than 1,000 contributing members organized for the purpose of amending the state constitution to require that justices of the Supreme Court be nominated at nonpartisan primary elections. All individual plaintiffs are identified residents and registered voters of the State of Michigan. Plaintiffs Bushnell, Keating, Fulkerson, Knoblock, and Britten are attorneys and otherwise qualified for the office of justice of the Supreme Court of this state. In addition, plaintiffs Britten and Knoblock are judges of the Fourth and Fifty-Second Judicial Circuits. Plaintiffs allege generally that they have been denied a right to vote for independent, nonpartisan candidates for the office of justice. Those plaintiffs qualified to serve in that office, allege that they have been denied "access to the ballot as independent, non-partisan candidates for the office of justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan." There is no allegation that any plaintiff has made an actual request of any defendant for access to the ballot.

Defendants are Michigan's Secretary of State and the four members of the Michigan Board of Canvassers.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants have erred in accepting nominations of, and placing on the ballot[425 MICH 340] the names of candidates nominated by political parties as provided in M.C.L. Sec. 168.392; M.S.A. Sec. 6.1392 and M.C.L. Sec. 168.393; M.S.A. Sec. 6.1393. ⁴ Plaintiffs argue that Const. 1963, art. 6, Sec. 2 requires that both nomination and election of justices must be nonpartisan. They argue that the Legislature has "neglected, failed and refused" to provide a statutory, nonpartisan method of nominating candidates. Plaintiffs have invited first the Court of Appeals and now this Court to declare M.C.L. Sec. 168.392; M.S.A. Sec. 6.1392 and M.C.L. Sec. 168.393; M.S.A. Sec. 6.1393 unconstitutional and to impose judicially a system for nominating candidates by petitions and a primary election detailed in plaintiffs' pleadings.

The Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' complaint for mandamus in an order dated April 1, 1986. Plaintiffs have filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court.

II

For over a century, this Court has followed a number of consistent, "dovetailing

Page 432

rules of constitutional construction," Carman v. Secretary of State, 384 Mich. 443, 451, 185 N.W.2d 1 (1971); Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1978 PA 426, 403 Mich. 631, 639, 272 N.W.2d 495 (1978). "The cardinal rule of construction, concerning language, is to apply to it that meaning which it would naturally convey to the popular mind...." People v. Dean, 14 Mich. 406, 417 (1866). A collateral rule "is that to clarify meaning, the circumstances surrounding the adoption of a constitutional provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished may be considered." Traverse City School Dist. v. Attorney General, 384 Mich. 390, 405, 185 N.W.2d 9 (1971), citing Kearney v. Bd of [425 MICH 341] State Auditors, 189 Mich. 666, 673, 155 N.W. 510 (1915).

"To ascertain the circumstances surrounding the adoption of a constitutional provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished by the provision, the 'Address to the People' and the convention debates may be consulted." Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1978 PA 426, supra, 403 Mich. 640-641, 272 N.W.2d 495, citing Regents of the University of Michigan v. Michigan, 395 Mich. 52, 235 N.W.2d 1 (1975). "Courts on numerous occasions have gone to the constitutional convention debates and addresses to the people to decide the meaning of the Constitution." Burdick v. Secretary of State, 373 Mich. 578, 584, 130 N.W.2d 380 (1964).

In Regents, supra, this Court explained the appropriate use of the record of debates contained in the Official Record of the Constitutional Convention of 1961 and the "Address to the People":

"The debates must be placed in perspective. They are individual expressions of concepts as the speakers perceive them (or make an effort to explain them). Although they are sometimes illuminating, affording a sense of direction, they are not decisive as to the intent of the general convention (or of the people) in adopting the measures.

"Therefore, we will turn to the committee debates only in the absence of guidance in the constitutional language as well as in the 'Address to the People,' or when we find in the debates a recurring thread of explanation binding together the whole of a constitutional concept. The reliability of the 'Address to the People' (now appearing textually as 'Convention Comments') lies in the fact that it was approved by the general convention on August 1, 1962 as an explanation of the proposed constitution. The 'Address' also was widely disseminated prior to adoption of the constitution by vote of the people." (Emphasis added.) 395 Mich. 59-60, 235 N.W.2d 1.

[425 MICH 342] In Pfeiffer v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 118 Mich. 560, 564, 77 N.W. 250 (1898), this Court stated:

"In determining this question, we should endeavor to place ourselves in the position of the framers of the Constitution, and ascertain what was meant at the time; for, if we are successful in doing this, we have solved the question of its meaning for all time. It could not mean one thing at the time of its adoption, and another thing today, when public sentiments have undergone a change. McPherson v. Secretary of State, 92 Mich. 377 (16 LRA 475, 31 Am St Rep 587) [52 NW 469 (1892) ]."

The intent of the framers, however, must be used as part of the primary rule of "common understanding" described by Justice Cooley:

" 'A constitution is made for the people and by the people. The interpretation that should be given it is that which reasonable minds, the great mass of the people themselves, would give it. "For as the Constitution does not derive its force from the convention which framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any dark or abstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the sense designed to be conveyed."

Page 433

(Cooley's Const Lim [6th ed] 81).' (Emphasis added.)" 384 Mich. 405, 185 N.W.2d 9. III

Since it attained statehood almost 150 years ago, Michigan has had a variety of methods of selection of justices. They have been appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, [425 MICH 343] Const.1835, art. 6, Sec. 2. The Court has consisted of the assembled judges of circuit courts, Const.1850, art. 6, Sec. 2. It has consisted of one chief justice and three associate justices elected according to legislation, Const.1850, art. 6, Sec. 2. As originally adopted, Const.1908, art. 7, Sec. 2 provided for "one chief justice and associate justices, to be chosen by the electors of the state at the regular biennial spring elections...." ⁵

At the biennial spring election of 1939, the electors adopted a proposal which became art. 7, Sec. 23 of the Constitution of 1908. ⁶ The proposal required that all elections of justices, judges, and [425 MICH 344] judicial officers be nonpartisan. It applied to both primary elections and general elections. The provision required that all judicial officers except...