Reynolds v. Bureau of State Lottery

• Decision Date: 22 May 2000
• Docket Number: Docket No. 210973.
• Citation: 610 N.W.2d 597,240 Mich. App. 84
• Parties: Brian REYNOLDS and Reynolds for Surveyor, a Michigan political candidate committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bill Martin, Commissioner of the Bureau of State Lottery; and the BUREAU OF STATE LOTTERY, Defendants-Appellees, and Attorney General and Bingo, Amici Curiae.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

610 N.W.2d 597

240 Mich. App. 84

Brian REYNOLDS and Reynolds for Surveyor, a Michigan political candidate committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bill Martin, Commissioner of the Bureau of State Lottery; and the BUREAU OF STATE LOTTERY, Defendants-Appellees, and Attorney General and Bingo, Amici Curiae.

Docket No. 210973.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted September 15, 1999, at Grand Rapids.

Decided March 3, 2000, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication May 22, 2000.

Boyden, Waddell, Timmons & Dilley, P.L.C. (by Thomas F. Koernke), Grand Rapids, for the plaintiffs.

Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Keith Roberts and E. Michael Stafford, Assistant Attorneys General, Lansing, and Dickinson Wright PLLC (by Peter H. Ellsworth and Jeffery V. Stuckey, Special Assistant Attorneys General), Lansing, for the defendants.

Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Gary P. Gordon and Katherine C. Galvin, Assistant Attorneys General, amici curiae for the Attorney General.

Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Bogas & McIntosh, P.C. (by Mary Ellen Gurewitz), Detroit, for amici curiae B.I.N.G.O. (Bingo is Necessary for Grassroots Organization).

Before BANDSTRA, C.J., and MARKMAN and METER, JJ.

BANDSTRA, C.J.

At issue here is the power of the Legislature to reenact a law while a referendum process regarding that law is pending but before the general election deciding the referendum. Plaintiffs¹ claim that, in granting declaratory relief to defendants, the trial court improperly determined that the Legislature has this power. We conclude that the relevant constitutional provisions do not deny the Legislature this power and we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Matters of constitutional and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Oakland County Bd. of County Rd. Com'rs v. Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Ass'n, 456 Mich. 590, 610, 575 N.W.2d 751 (1998). This Court has articulated the standard for interpreting constitutional provisions as follows:

When interpreting the constitution, the primary duty of the judiciary is to "ascertain as best the Court may the general understanding and therefore the uppermost or dominant purpose of the people when they approved the provision or provisions." Michigan Farm Bureau v. Secretary of State, 379 Mich. 387, 390-391, 151 N.W.2d 797 (1967). A constitutional provision must be interpreted in the "sense most obvious to the common understanding." House Speaker v. Governor, 443 Mich. 560, 577, 506 N.W.2d 190 (1993). [Bingo Coalition for Charity-Not Politics v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 215 Mich.App. 405, 409-410, 546 N.W.2d 637 (1996).]

Similarly, when interpreting statutes, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marlette Homes, Inc., 456 Mich. 511, 515, 573 N.W.2d 611 (1998). Our first step in achieving that goal is to examine the language of the statute itself. In re MCI Telecommunications Complaint, 460 Mich. 396, 411, 596 N.W.2d 164 (1999). If the language of the statute is clear, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning it expressed. Id.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

To understand the question presented and to aid in its proper analysis, it is necessary to outline the underlying facts in some detail. Before 1994, subsection 3(6) of the Bingo Act, M.C.L. § 432.103(6); MSA 18.969(103)(6), specifically provided that political candidate committees were among the "qualified organization[s]" that could be licensed to conduct bingo. 1994 PA 118 amended the definition of "qualified organization" to specifically exclude all political committees, including candidate committees, effective April 1, 1995. In addition, this legislation increased the maximum payout allowed in a charity game conducted in conjunction with a bingo game. MCL 432.107a; MSA 18.969(107a).²

The prohibition of bingo activity by political organizations was controversial and petitions for a statewide referendum on 1994 PA 118 were circulated. Approximately 85,000 signatures were collected before November 8, 1994, the date of the next general election, with approximately 155,000 collected after that election Bingo Coalition, supra at 408-409, 546 N.W.2d 637. The referendum petitions were filed with the Secretary of State on January 31, 1995, and a dispute arose regarding the validity of the petition signatures that had been collected before the election. Id. The Secretary of State issued a declaratory ruling that all signatures on a referendum petition must be collected within a single election cycle, meaning that more than one-third of the signatures would not be counted. Id. at 408, 546 N.W.2d 637. The Board of State Canvassers addressed the validity of these petitions (and this declaratory ruling) and deadlocked, two members voting to uphold the declaratory ruling and two members voting to count the signatures obtained before the election along with those obtained after the election. Id. at 409, 546 N.W.2d 637. Our Court determined that the signatures collected before and following the general election should have been combined for purposes of determining the validity of the referendum petitions, in a decision issued on February 9, 1996. Id. at 414, 546 N.W.2d 637.

However, while the referendum petition certification and appeal were in process, the Legislature enacted 1995 PA 275. The only substantive³ change made by this legislation was in the definition of "fraternal organization," to include organizations existing for a common "purpose" rather than a common "business." 1995 PA 275, M.C.L. § 432.103(2); MSA 18.969(103)(2).⁴ However, the legislation encompassed all of § 3 of the Bingo Act including subsection 3(6) in substantially the same form as it had been amended by 1994 PA 118.

The Legislature gave 1995 PA 275 immediate effect, meaning that it became law on January 7, 1996, when it was signed by the Governor. Shortly thereafter, the Governor sent a letter to legislative leaders in which he opined that, notwithstanding the potential referendum vote on 1994 PA 118, the result of 1995 PA 275 was that political committees could not be granted bingo licenses because they were not "qualified organizations" under the Bingo Act. Accordingly, the Governor stated that, when current bingo licenses expired, political committees would be ineligible to renew those licenses.

As a result of the passage of 1995 PA 275, the appellant in Bingo Coalition moved to dismiss that appeal as moot, apparently arguing that this legislative act completely suspended the referendum process. Having already issued its February 9 decision on the merits of the appeal, our Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal as moot in an order dated February 12, 1996. The order suggested no reason for that denial. Bingo Coalition for Charity-Not Politics v. Bd. of State Canvassers, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 12, 1996 (Docket Nos. 183728, 183757). Similarly, our Supreme Court denied an emergency application for leave to appeal this Court's decision in this regard, stating only that "we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court." Bingo Coalition for Charity v. State Bd of Canvassers, unpublished order of the Supreme Court, entered June 11, 1996 (Docket Nos. 105750, 105751).

After our Court's determination in Bingo Coalition that all signatures collected with respect to 1994 PA 118 should be considered, the Secretary of State certified the referendum for the 1996 general election. The referendum was rejected, the majority of voters voting against approving 1994 PA 118. Sometime thereafter, the instant plaintiffs filed an application for a bingo license. That application was denied by defendants on the basis of the statute as amended by 1995 PA 275.⁵ Plaintiffs sought to overturn that result in an action for declaratory relief filed in the circuit court on March 9, 1998. The circuit court's decision granting declaratory relief to defendants is the subject of this appeal.⁶

ANALYSIS

With respect to referendums, our Michigan Constitution states in pertinent part:

The people reserve to themselves ... the power to approve or reject laws enacted by the legislature, called the referendum.... The power of referendum... must be invoked in the manner prescribed by law within 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the law was enacted. To invoke the ... referendum, petitions signed by a number of registered electors, not less than ... five percent ... of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected shall be required.

No law as to which the power of referendum properly has been invoked shall be effective thereafter unless approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the next general election.

* * *

Any law submitted to the people by... referendum petition and approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon at any election shall take effect 10 days after the date of the official declaration of the vote.... Laws approved by the people under the referendum provision of this section may be amended by the legislature at any subsequent session thereof. [Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9.]

The primary question raised in this appeal is whether, under these constitutional provisions, the Legislature was without authority to pass 1995 PA 275 and thus reenact the provisions of 1994 PA 118, that was then subject to a referendum effort. We conclude that the Legislature had this authority and that, in exercising it, the Legislature did not undermine the referendum authority granted to the people by our constitution.

We begin our analysis by considering our Supreme Court's decision in Michigan Farm Bureau. The question presented there was whether referendum petition signatures could be collected and filed before the...