Protect Our Jobs v. Bd. of State Canvassers, Docket Nos. 145748
| Decision Date | 05 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | 145753,145754,Docket Nos. 145748,and 145755. |
| Citation | 822 N.W.2d 534,492 Mich. 763 |
| Parties | PROTECT OUR JOBS v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS. Michigan Alliance for Prosperity v. Board of State Canvassers. Citizens for More Michigan Jobs v. Secretary of State. The People Should Decide v. Board of State Canvassers. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Sachs Waldman, P.C., Detroit (by Andrew Nickelhoff), for Protect Our Jobs.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, B. Eric Restuccia, Deputy Solicitor General, Heather S. Meingast, Ann M. Sherman, and Denise C. Barton, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Board of State Canvassers and the Director of Elections in Protect Our Jobs.
Dykema Gossett PLLC, Lansing (by Gary P. Gordon, Leonard C. Wolfe, Jason T. Hanselman, and Courtney F. Kissel), for Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution.
Witte Law Offices, Lansing (by Matthew G. Davis), for Michigan Alliance for Prosperity.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, B. Eric Restuccia, Deputy Solicitor General, Denise C. Barton, Heather S. Meingast, and Ann M. Sherman, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Board of State Canvassers, the Director of Elections, and the Secretary of State in Michigan Alliance.
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Lansing (by John D. Pirich and Andrea L. Hansen), for Defend Michigan Democracy.
Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C., Lansing (by Jonathan E. Raven and Graham K. Crabtree), for Citizens for More Michigan Jobs and Robert J. Cannon.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, B. Eric Restuccia, Deputy Solicitor General, Ann M. Sherman and Denise C. Barton, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Secretary of State, the Board of State Canvassers, and the Director of Elections in Citizens for More Michigan Jobs.
Dickinson Wright PLLC, Lansing (by Peter H. Ellsworth and Jeffery V. Stuckey), and Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (by John D. Pirich and Andrea L. Hansen), for Protect MI Constitution.
Kerr, Russel and Weber, PLC, Detroit (by Joanne Geha Swanson), Gerald Fisher, Nedelman Legal Group PLLC, Farmington Hills (by Michael A. Nedelman), and Stephen J. Safranek, for The People Should Decide.
Elections, and the Secretary of State in People Should Decide.
Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, PLC, Lansing (by Michael J. Hodge, William J. Danhof, and Scott R. Eldridge), and Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Lansing (by John D. Pirich and Andrea L. Hansen), for Taxpayers Against Monopolies.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, and Richard A. Bandstra, Chief Legal Counsel, for the Attorney General and the Governor in Protect Our Jobs.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, and Richard A. Bandstra, Chief Legal Counsel, for the Attorney General in Citizens for More Michigan Jobs.
Richard D. McLellan for William Birdseye and the Police Officers Association of Michigan in Citizens for More Michigan Jobs.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, and Richard A. Bandstra, Chief Legal Counsel, for the Governor in People Should Decide.
Article 1, § 1 of Michigan's Constitution states: 1 Within our Constitution, the people have allocated certain portions of their inherent powers to the branches of government. But the people have also reserved certain powers to themselves. Among these powers is the right to amend the Constitution by petition and popular vote.2 This Court has consistently protected the right of the people to amend their Constitution in this way, while enforcing constitutional and statutory safeguards that the people placed on the exercise of that right. Nearly one century ago we recognized that
[o]f the right of qualified voters of the State to propose amendments to the Constitution by petition it may be said, generally, that it can be interfered with neither by the legislature, the courts, nor the officers charged with any duty in the premises. But the right is to be exercised in a certain way and according to certain conditions, the limitations upon its exercise, like the reservation of the right itself, being found in the Constitution.3
These four cases, each involving a ballot proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution, ask us to decide whether the groups proposing the amendments properlyexercised their right to petition for constitutional amendments in compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards. Specifically, these cases present the issue whether the petitions for each proposal satisfied the requirement under Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 and MCL 168.482(3) to republish any existing provisions of the Constitution that the proposed amendment would alter or abrogate. We reaffirm our prior caselaw holding that an existing provision is only altered when the amendment actually adds to, deletes from, or changes the wording of the provision. We further reaffirm that an amendment only abrogates an existing provision when it renders that provision wholly inoperative.
Applying the meanings of “alter” and “abrogate” to the cases at hand, we conclude that none of the ballot proposals alter an existing provision of the Constitutionbecause none of them actually “add to, delete from, or change the existing wording of the provision....” 4 In addition, we conclude that only the ballot proposal relating to casinos in Citizens for More Michigan Jobs v. Secretary of State (Docket No. 145754) abrogates an existing constitutional provision. Specifically, the casino amendment's requirement that the casinos authorized by the amendment “shall be granted” liquor licenses by the state of Michigan renders wholly inoperative the “complete control of the alcoholic beverage traffic within this state” afforded to the Liquor Control Commission under an existing provision of the Constitution— Const. 1963, art. 4, § 40. Therefore, article 4, § 40 was required to be republished on the petition to inform the people of this abrogation.
Accordingly, in Protect Our Jobs v. Board of State Canvassers (Docket No. 145748), we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals granting relief on the complaint for mandamus. In Michigan Alliance for Prosperity v. Board of State Canvassers (Docket No. 145753) and The People Should Decide v. Board of State Canvassers (Docket No. 145755), we grant relief on the complaints for mandamus in part and direct the Secretary of State, the Board of State Canvassers, and the Director of Elections to proceed as necessary to place the proposed constitutional amendments on the November 2012 election ballot. We deny relief in all other respects. In Citizens for More Michigan Jobs, we dismiss the complaint for mandamus filed in the Court of Appeals and deny relief in all other respects.
In each of these four cases, ballot question committees have proposed amendments of the 1963 Michigan Constitution. Each committee has obtained the required number of valid signatures for placement on the ballot. But each proposal was challenged before the Board of State Canvassers. Although the proposed amendments pertain to different subjects, the common argument challenging the proposals that we are considering concerns whether any of the proposed amendments will alter or abrogate an existing constitutional provision that was not republished on the petition.5
In Protect Our Jobs, the ballot question committee Protect Our Jobs proposes an amendment that would enshrine certain collective-bargaining rights in the Constitution.Its petition was challenged at the Board of State Canvassers by Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution. Because the board refused to certify the proposal for the ballot, Protect Our Jobs sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the writ of mandamus,6 which led Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution to file the instant application.
In Citizens for More Michigan Jobs, the ballot question committee Citizens for More Michigan Jobs proposes an amendment that would allow for the construction of eight new casinos in Michigan and designate their locations. Its petition was challenged by Protect MI Constitution, which sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals directing the Secretary of State to reject the ballot petition for a constitutional amendment. The Court of Appeals granted the requested relief.7 This Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacated that Court's order of mandamus, concluding that the constitutional amendment proposal is not an improper attempt to amend a statute and, thus, that the failure to publish an affected statute on the petition was not fatal to the proposal.8 This Court ordered the Secretary of State, the Board of State Canvassers, and the Director of Elections to proceed. 9 Upon consideration by the board, Protect MI Constitution again challenged the proposal on alternative grounds, and the board refused to certify it for the ballot. Citizens for More Michigan Jobs filed a complaintfor mandamus in the Court of Appeals and an emergency bypass application for leave to appeal in this Court.
In Michigan Alliance for Prosperity, the ballot question committee Michigan Alliance for Prosperity proposes an amendment that requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature or a vote of the people before any tax increase can be approved. At the Board of State Canvassers, the proposal was challenged by Defend Michigan Democracy. The board refused to certify the proposal for the ballot, and Michigan Alliance for Prosperity filed a complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals and an emergency bypass application for leave to appeal in this Court.
Lastly, in The People Should Decide,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State
...constitutional and statutory safeguards that the people placed on the exercise of that right." Protect Our Jobs v. Bd. of State Canvassers , 492 Mich. 763, 772, 822 N.W.2d 534 (2012). Indeed, a century ago, in Scott v. Secretary of State , 202 Mich. 629, 643, 168 N.W. 709 (1918), this Court......
-
Reproductive Freedom for All v. Bd. of State Canvassers
...(Mich, 2012) ; Protect Our Jobs v Bd of State Canvassers , ––– Mich ––––; 820 N.W.2d 167 (Mich, 2012) ; Protect Our Jobs v Bd of State Canvassers , 492 Mich. 763, 822 N.W.2d 534 (2012) ; Citizens for More Mich Jobs v Secretary of State , 820 N.W.2d 166 (Mich, 2012).15 The two other plaintif......
-
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State
..., 280 Mich. App. at 276.Four years after Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution was decided, our Court considered in Protect Our Jobs v. Bd. of State Canvassers , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 27, 2012 (Docket No. 311828), 2012 WL 3660260, aff’d ......
-
Promote the Vote 2022 v. Bd. of State Canvassers
...abrogated by the proposed amendments, as is required by Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 and MCL 168.482. See Protect Our Jobs v Bd of State Canvassers , 492 Mich. 763, 822 N.W.2d 534 (2012). We disagree. Instead, we conclude that the proposed amendments would not abrogate any of the constitutiona......