Paquin v. City of St. Ignace, Docket No. 156823

Decision Date08 July 2019
Docket NumberDocket No. 156823
Parties Fred PAQUIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. IGNACE, Defendant-Appellee, and Attorney General, Intervening Appellee.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Bernstein, J.

This case requires us to examine the language of our state Constitution; specifically, we are concerned with whether a tribal government constitutes "local ... government" under Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8. We hold that it does not. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Fred Paquin served the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (the Tribe), a federally recognized Indian tribe whose territory is located within the geographic boundaries of Michigan, in two capacities: as the chief of police for the tribal police department and as an elected member of the board of directors, the governing body of the Tribe. In 2010, plaintiff pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to defraud the United States by dishonest means in violation of 18 USC 371, for which he was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. The underlying conduct involved the misuse of federal funds granted to the tribal police department.

In both 2013 and 2015, plaintiff sought to run for a position on defendant’s city council in the November general election. Plaintiff was rebuffed each time by defendant’s city manager, who denied plaintiff’s request to be placed on the ballot. In each instance, defendant’s city manager relied on Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8 to conclude that plaintiff’s prior felony conviction barred him from running for city council. Of particular note is the fact that defendant’s city manager specifically relied on a formal Attorney General opinion that had concluded that this constitutional provision "applies to a person convicted of a crime based on that person’s conduct as a governmental employee or elected official of a federally recognized Indian Tribe." OAG, 2013-2014, No. 7273, p. 30, at 30 (August 15, 2013).1

Following the denial of his second request, plaintiff filed a declaratory action on July 20, 2015, seeking a ruling that the constitutional provision did not apply to him because his positions had been in tribal government, not "local, state, or federal government" under Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8. Plaintiff moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The Attorney General moved to submit an amicus brief and to participate in oral argument in support of defendant, which the circuit court granted. After oral argument, the circuit court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed his complaint with prejudice.

On October 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published per curiam opinion. Paquin v. City of St. Ignace , 321 Mich. App. 673, 909 N.W.2d 884 (2017). The Court of Appeals noted that the only issue before it was whether plaintiff’s position of employment in tribal government constituted employment in "local, state, or federal government" under Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8.2 Id. at 681, 909 N.W.2d 884. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that "the Tribe qualifies as a ‘local government’ under the plain meaning of the text of Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8." Id.

Plaintiff timely sought leave to appeal in this Court. On May 23, 2018, we ordered oral argument on the application. Paquin v. City of St. Ignace , 501 Mich. 1076, 911 N.W.2d 458 (2018).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The interpretation of a constitutional provision is a question of law, which we review de novo. Bonner v. City of Brighton , 495 Mich. 209, 221, 848 N.W.2d 380 (2014). "[T]he primary objective of constitutional interpretation is to realize the intent of the people by whom and for whom the constitution was ratified." Studier v. Mich. Pub. Sch. Employees' Retirement Bd. , 472 Mich. 642, 652, 698 N.W.2d 350 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, "we seek the common understanding of the people at the time the constitution was ratified. This involves applying the plain meaning of each term used at the time of ratification, unless technical, legal terms are used." Goldstone v. Bloomfield Twp. Pub. Library , 479 Mich. 554, 558-559, 737 N.W.2d 476 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).3

III. ANALYSIS

Article 11, § 8 was added to the Michigan Constitution by amendment after a statewide vote in the November 2010 general election. In relevant part, the provision states:

A person is ineligible for election or appointment to any state or local elective office of this state ... if, within the immediately preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust and the conviction was related to the person’s official capacity while the person was holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state, or federal government. This requirement is in addition to any other qualification required under this constitution or by law.
The legislature shall prescribe by law for the implementation of this section. [Emphasis added.]

The issue before us is narrowly presented.4 The parties agree that the material facts are not in dispute and that most of the language of Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8 is satisfied. There is, for example, no dispute that tribal government is a government; instead, the question is limited to whether the Tribe qualifies as "local, state, or federal government."

The Court of Appeals and the Attorney General opinions focused exclusively on whether the Tribe constitutes "local government." The Court of Appeals specifically defined "local government," in relevant part, as follows: "Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2007), p. 730, defines ‘local government’ as: ‘1. the government of a specific local area constituting a major political unit (as a nation or a state)[.] " Paquin , 321 Mich. App. at 682, 909 N.W.2d 884. As an initial matter, we note that this quotation appears to be incomplete, as the relied-upon dictionary actually defines "local government" as "the government of a specific local area constituting a subdivision of a major political unit (as a nation or state)[.]" Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2007), p. 730 (emphasis added). See also Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.), p. 811 (defining "local government," in relevant part, as "[t]he government of a particular locality, such as a city, county, or parish; a governing body at a lower level than the state government"). This error significantly undermines the Court of Appeals' textual analysis of Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8. This omitted language strongly suggests that "local ... government" be understood as a subdivision of another body of government. Significantly, the erroneous definition would also render into needless surplusage the additional language in the list, which refers to both "state ... government" and "federal government."

Although it has not been argued that the Tribe constitutes either "state ... government" or "federal government," parsing those two terms further helps to discern the intent of the people of Michigan. We begin with the term "federal government." We note that the term is commonly used as shorthand for a country’s government in general; indeed, under the entry for "federal government," Black’s Law Dictionary simply directs the reader to consult the definition of "government." Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.), p. 728.5 But this reading of "federal government" is overly simplistic. Although our national government is a federal government, "federal" government necessarily implies that there is a union, or a federation, of smaller political entities; in contrast, there are many examples of unitary governments that do not take the same form.6 A reading of "federal government" to include only those foreign governments that are structured in the same manner as our federal government would seem to be less than obvious or common.

Instead, it is instructive to note the lack of determiners or articles preceding the list "local, state, or federal government." Although "any" is used to modify the phrase "elective office or position of employment," no such modifier is included before "local, state, or federal government." When read in context, the constitutional provision refers to a person who "was holding any elective office or position of employment in ... federal government." Const. 1963, art. 11, § 8. The provision does not state "a federal government" or "any federal government," both of which might suggest an intent to include other federal governments. When no modifier is used at all, coupled with our understanding of "federal government" as referring to a particular form of government, it is clear that the common understanding of the phrase is that it specifically refers to the United States federal government.

This understanding of "federal government" necessarily impacts our reading of the terms "state ... government" and "local ... government," because these terms must be read in context. See Lapeer Co. Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit Court , 469 Mich. 146, 156, 665 N.W.2d 452 (2003) ("[E]very provision must be interpreted in the light of the document as a whole, and no provision should be construed to nullify or impair another."). If "federal government" here refers to the United States federal government specifically, it does not follow that either "state ... government" or "local ... government" would have broader application.

Nonetheless, that "local government" must here refer to domestic local government does not end our inquiry. The Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to describe tribal governments as "domestic dependent nations," Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , 30 U.S. 1, 17, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), albeit ones that "exercise inherent sovereign authority over their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Sec'y of State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 14 Julio 2020
    ...the ordinary meaning of each term used at the time of ratification, unless technical, legal terms are used. Paquin v. St. Ignace , 504 Mich. 124, 129-130, 934 N.W.2d 650 (2019). Also applicable in this case is a secondary rule of state constitutional interpretation, which states that "where......
  • League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Sec'y of State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 29 Diciembre 2020
    ...it to arise again in the future.27 We recently considered the issue of mootness in the election context in Paquin v. City of St. Ignace , 504 Mich. 124, 934 N.W.2d 650 (2019). There, the Court refused to declare sua sponte that the case was moot. In Paquin , the Court reasoned that the case......
  • Taxpayers for Mich. Constitutional Gov't v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 28 Julio 2021
    ...OF REVIEW"The interpretation of a constitutional provision is a question of law, which we review de novo." Paquin v. St. Ignace , 504 Mich. 124, 129, 934 N.W.2d 650 (2019). This Court's primary objective is to "realize the intent of the people by whom and for whom the constitution was ratif......
  • Smith v. Landrum
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 29 Octubre 2020
    ...554 U.S. 316, 327, 128 S. Ct. 2709, 171 L. Ed. 2d 457 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). See also Paquin v. St. Ignace , 504 Mich. 124, 134-135, 934 N.W.2d 650 (2019).11 For this reason, as well as several others, defendant's citation to Boisclair v. Superior Court of San Diego ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT