Title: STATE OF MICHIGAN V CITY COUNCIL FOR CITY OF DETROIT

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________ 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
C hief Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan  
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED JULY 17, 2002  
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,  
Plaintiffs-Appellees,  
and  
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF  
DETROIT, et al.,  
Intervening Counter­
Plaintiffs-Appellees,  
v
 Nos. 121918, 121919  
WAYNE COUNTY CLERK, and WAYNE 
COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION,  
Defendants-Appellees,  
and  
THE DETROIT ELECTION COMMISSION,  
Defendant-Appellant.  
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,  
Plaintiffs-Appellees,  
and  
________________________________ 
 
v
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF  
DETROIT, et al.,  
Intervening Counter- 
Plaintiffs-Appellants,  
Nos. 121938, 121939  
WAYNE COUNTY CLERK, WAYNE COUNTY 
ELECTION COMMISSION, and THE 
DETROIT ELECTION COMMISSION,  
Defendants-Appellees.  
MEMORANDUM OPINION  
In 2002 PA 432, the Legislature directed the city of  
Detroit to place on the August 6, 2002, ballot a proposal to  
change from the current at-large system of electing the city  
council to a single-member district plan.  However, the  
Detroit Election Commission declined to certify the measure  
for inclusion on the ballot.  The plaintiffs brought this  
action in circuit court seeking mandamus, and the circuit  
court ordered the proposition placed on the ballot.  Claims of  
appeal were filed by the Election Commission and by the  
Detroit City Council and its incumbent members, who had been  
permitted to intervene.  After the Court of Appeals denied  
motions for expedited consideration, they filed applications  
for leave to appeal to this Court before decision by the Court  
of Appeals.  
We conclude that the statute does not validly direct  
placement of the proposition on the ballot because it was not  
passed by a two-thirds vote in each house of the Legislature,  
2  
as required by Const 1963, art 4, § 29.  We therefore reverse  
the judgment of the circuit court.  
Act 432 amends the Home Rule City Act by adding  
MCL 117.3a, which includes the following provision:  
(1) A city that has a population of not less  
than 750,000 as determined by the most recent 
federal decennial census and that has a city 
council composed of 9 at-large council members 
shall place a question in substantially the  
following form on the ballot at the general primary 
election held on Tuesday, August 6, 2002:  
“Shall the existing 9-member at-large council 
be abolished, shall the city be reapportioned into 
9 single-member election districts,
district residency requirements be 
candidates for the city council? 
and shall 
imposed on 
“Yes (_____) 
“No (_____).” 
One of the challenges raised by the appellants is a claim  
that the act violates art 4, § 29, which provides:  
The legislature shall pass no local or special 
act in any case where a general act can be made 
applicable and whether a general act can be made 
applicable shall be a judicial question. No local  
or special act shall take effect until approved by 
two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in 
each house and by a majority of the electors voting 
thereon in the district affected.  
The statute does not refer by name to the city of  
Detroit, but rather purports to apply to any city with a  
population of more than 750,000 that has a nine-member  
at-large elected city council.  However, at present, only the  
city of Detroit meets that population criterion.  Such  
population-based 
statutes 
have 
been 
upheld 
against 
claims 
that  
3  
  
 
they constitute local acts where it is possible that other  
municipalities or counties can qualify for inclusion if their  
populations change.  Dearborn v Wayne Co Bd of Supervisors,  
275 Mich 151, 155-157; 266 NW 304 (1936); Irishman’s Lot, Inc  
v Secretary of State, 338 Mich 662, 666-668; 62 NW2d 668  
(1954).
 However, where the statute cannot apply to other  
units of government, that is fatal to its status as a general  
act. See Mulloy v Wayne Co Bd of Supervisors, 246 Mich 632,  
637-640; 225 NW 615 (1929); 
Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc v  
City of Romulus, 400 Mich 337, 345; 254 NW2d 555 (1977).  
In this case, the statute plainly fails to qualify as a  
general act.  Even if another city reaches a population of  
750,000, and has a nine-member at-large council, Act 432 would  
not apply because of its requirement that the proposition  
appear on the ballot at the August 6, 2002, election.  No  
other city can meet that requirement because there will be no  
new census before that date.  
The plaintiffs argue that the art 4, § 29 claim is a  
substantive challenge to the proposed law, and thus not ripe  
for review until after the law is enacted, citing Hamilton v  
Secretary of State, 212 Mich 31; 179 NW 553 (1920), Ferency v  
Bd of State Canvassers, 198 Mich App 271; 497 NW2d 233 (1993),  
and Beechnau v Secretary of State, 42 Mich App 328; 201 NW2d  
699 (1972).  However, unlike the situations in those cases,  
the appellants are not claiming that, if enacted, the statute  
4  
proposed by the Legislature would be unconstitutional.  
Rather, the challenge is that Act 432 is a local act, which  
requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature.  
It 
did 
not 
receive 
such 
a 
vote 
in 
the 
House 
of  
Representatives.1  Thus, the act does not satisfy the  
requirements for placing the proposition on the ballot.2  
Accordingly, 
we reverse the judgment of the Wayne Circuit  
Court, and order that the plaintiffs’ complaint for mandamus  
be dismissed. The defendants shall take whatever steps they  
deem appropriate to inform prospective voters that the  
1 The measure did receive a two-thirds vote in the  
Senate.  2002 Journal of the Senate 1501 (No. 53, June 5,  
2002).  However, it was approved by only a 67 to 37 vote in 
the House.  2002 Journal of the House 1776 (No. 51, May 29, 
2002).  
2 In response to the order to show cause that we issued 
on July 12, 2002, the plaintiffs essentially concede that Act 
432 is a local act.  They maintain, however, that Const 1963, 
art 4, § 29 does not require that the approval by two-thirds 
majorities in each house of the Legislature occur before the 
vote of the electors in the affected district.  However, we 
read art 4, § 29 as requiring a two-thirds vote of each house 
of the Legislature to approve the local act for placement on 
the ballot in the community affected.  
In 
addition, 
the 
state’s 
interpretation 
of 
the  
constitution is flawed in at least the following respects: (a) 
it would alter the sequence by which local or special acts 
take effect under art 4, § 29, a sequence that is expressly 
set forth in that provision,(b) it would transform the two­
step process specified in art 4, § 29 into an apparently 
three-step process, and (c) it would create an open-ended and 
indefinite process under art 4, § 29 by which the Legislature 
could “ratify” a local vote many years after the local vote 
had occurred within the affected district.  
5  
 
 
 
 
proposition has been removed from the ballot by court order  
and that votes on it will not be counted.  
Pursuant to MCR 7.317(C)(4), the clerk is directed to  
issue the judgment order in this case forthwith.  
CORRIGAN, C.J., and CAVANAGH, WEAVER, 
KELLY, TAYLOR, 
YOUNG, 
and  
MARKMAN, JJ., concurred.  
6