Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

August 27, 2012

Michigan Supreme Court holds that proposals to amend the Michigan Constitution need only comply with Article 12, Section 2

In Protect Mi Constitution v. Secretary of State, No. 145698, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals and vacated that court's order of mandamus in lieu of granting leave to appeal. The Court held that a ballot proposal that seeks voter approval of a constitutional amendment is governed by Article 12, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution, not Article 4, Section 25. The Court held that the latter applies to amendments of laws, not amendments to the Michigan Constitution. The Court further held that there was no showing of a failure to comply with Article 12, Section 2, and it accordingly reversed the Court of Appeals, which had entered an order of mandamus after applying Article 4, Section 25.

In Protect MI Constitution v. Secretary of State, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a ballot proposal petition failed to comply with Michigan's constitutional requirements for altering or amending a law, and the Secretary therefore had 'a clear legal duty to reject the petition.' Article 4, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution requires certain petitions to 'publish at length' the sections of the law that the proposal would alter. The petition at issue in the case only described the amendments to the Michigan Constitution that it proposed to enact; it failed to set forth the language of the existing Gaming Act that would be altered by the proposal. The petition did not even reference the Gaming Act. The Court of Appeals held that the proposal would amend a law, so it had to comply with the constitutional requirements for amending a law. Because the proposal failed to complay with those requirements, the Court of Appeals held that it was ineligible for placement on the ballot. The court then issued an order directing the Secretary of State to reject the petition and to disallow the proposal on the ballot.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. It held that a ballot petition proposal that seeks to amend the Michigan Constitution is governed only by Article 12, Section 2. It is not governed by Article 4, Section 25, which only governs amendments to laws. Because there was no showing that the petition proposal had failed to comply with Article 12, Section 2, the Court reversed and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for mandamus.

In his concurrence, Justice Markman wrote separately to note that he would hold that petition proposals to amened the Michigan Constitution must also comply with Article 2, Section 9 and Article 4, Section 25, particularly here, where the intended purpose of the proposal is to alter the Gaming Act. He further emphasized that the greatest virtue of the Court's decision was that it provided clarity as to what is required of a voter-initiated constitutional amendment.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset