TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIGAN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT v STATE OF MICHIGAN
Docket No s
. 160658 and 160660

. Argued March 4, 2021 (Calendar No. 4). Decided July 28 , 2021. Taxpayers for Michigan Constitut ional Government , Steve Duchane, Randall Blum, and Sara Kandel brought a n original action in the Court of Appeals against the state of Michigan; the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget; and the Office of the Auditor General to enforce § 30 of the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, a rt 9, § 30, which prohibits the stat e from reducing its budget for total state spending paid to all units of local government, taken as a group , below that proportion in effect in fiscal year 1978

– 1979. Plaintiffs alleged in a four

- count complaint that the state’s accounting pract ices have resulted in violations of the Headlee Amendment : Count I asserted that the state violated § 30 by classifying as state spending paid to local government monies paid to school districts pursuant to Proposal A, Const 1963, art 9, § 11; Count II mad e the same assertion as to monies paid to public school academies (PSAs) pursuant to Proposal A and MCL 380.501(1); Count III alleged that the s tate improperly classified as § 30 state spending those funds paid to maintain trunk

- line roads; and Count IV so ught a determination that state funds directed to local governments for new state mandates may not be counted toward the proportion of state funds required by § 30. The Court of Appeals, B ORRELLO , P.J., and F ORT H OOD and S HAPIRO , JJ., dismissed Count III without prejudice upon stipulation of the parties in an unpublished order entered on December 4, 2017 (Docket No. 334663)

. Both plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). In a published decision on reconsiderati on, the Court of Appeals , B ORRELLO , P.J., and M ETER and S HAPIRO , JJ., granted defendants summary disposition on Count I , holding that Proposal A spending is properly categorized as state funding to a unit of local government. 330 Mich App 295 (2019) (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.). The panel majority also granted summary disposition to the state defendants on Count II, over a p artial dissent from Judge M ETER , holding that state aid to PSAs falls within the scope of state spending to units of local government under § 30. The panel majority granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition on Count IV, over a partial dissent fro m Judge B ORRELLO , holding that state spending to fund state

- mandated local services as required by § 29 should not be included in the state’s calculation of the proportion of total state spending under § 30. Finally, the panel granted plaintiffs mandamus relief and directed the state to comply with reporting requirements found in MCL 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241. Both plaintiffs and defendants sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted the applications . 505 Mich 1136 (2020). Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan 

# Syllabus Chief Justice: Bridget M. McCormack Justices: Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader
. Reporter of Decisions: Kathryn L. LoomisIn an opinion by Justice C AVANAGH , joined by Chief Justice M C C ORMACK and Justices B ERNSTEIN , C LEMENT (except as to Part VIII), and W ELCH , the Supreme Court held : Proposal A payments to school districts and § 29 state spending to fund new state

mandated l ocal services and activities are both properly counted in the calculation of t otal state spending to all units of local government under Const 1963 , art 9, § 30; a PSA is not a “school district” within the meaning of Const 1963, art 9, § 33; PSAs themselves are not political subdivisions of the state for purposes of the Headlee Amendment, but on remand the Court of Appeals must consider whether PSA funding should be counted as spending paid to a unit of local governmen t if the authorizing body of the PSA is a school district, intermediate school district, or community college; and the Court of Appeals’ grant of mandamus was vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for clarification.
1. The Court of Appeals correc tly held t hat Proposal A spending is properly categorized as state spending paid to a unit of local government. Const 1963, art 9, § 30 provides that the proportion of total state spending paid to all units of local government, taken as a group, shall not be reduced below that proportion in effect in fiscal year 1978

– 1979. Const 1963, art 9, § 25 provides, in pertinent part, that the state is prohibited from shifting the tax burden to local government and that implementation of § 25 is specified in §§ 26 through 34

. Section 25 is a preface meant to provide context to the amendment as a whole and is not an independent statement of a substantive right. Because the constitutional language was clear, reliance on drafters’ notes regarding § 25 was inappropria te. And because § 25 was not a provision that could be independently enforced, the inquiry into whether Proposal A funding should be counted as part of “total state spending paid to all units of Local Government, taken as a group” under § 30 was straightf orward. Section 33 provides that the term “ local government ” includes school districts. Proposal A funding paid to school districts is state funding paid out of the State School Aid Fund. Accordingly, Proposal A funding is money collected and disbursed by the stat e to a unit of local government, and it was accurate to include Proposal A funds in determining the total state spending paid to all units of local government. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ grant of summary disposition to defendants on Count I was affirmed.
2. The Court of Appeals improperly concluded that a PSA is a “school district” within the meaning of Const 1963, art 9, § 33. Section 33 defines “local government” as any political subdivision of the state, including, but not restricte d to, school districts, cities, villages, townships, charter townships, counties, charter counties, authorities created by the state, and authorities created by other units of local government. A PSA is a state

- supported public school operating under a ch arter contract issued by a public authorizing body. Simply because a PSA is a “school district” for purposes of Proposal A funding does not necessarily mean that a PSA is also a “school district” as contemplated by the Headlee Amendment. Rather, the Head lee voters would not have considered PSAs as equivalent with “school districts” as the term was understood at the time the amendment was ratified. Like traditional school districts, PSAs deliver education to the students of this state, but they do not res emble traditional school districts in many other ways: PSAs are organized as nonprofit corporations by a person or other entity, while school districts are legislative creations; PSAs are not limited to a defined local geographic area like school districts ; instead of a locally elected school board directly beholden to the voters of a school district, the governing body of a PSA is made up of a board of directors comprised of privately selected members; unlike a school district board, the board of directors of a PSA may enter into a contract with an education

-management corporation to manage or operate the PSA or to provide the PSA with instructional or other services; and a PSA is funded solely by the state and may not levy taxes like a school district. In fact, a PSA is often viewed as an alternative to the traditional educational services offered by a school district, not an equivalent. Accordingly, a PSA is not a “school district” as Headlee voters would have understood the term. Furthermore, while PSA s deliver traditional governmental services, their distinctive marks are not those of a “political subdivision of the state” as the voters who ratified the Headlee Amendment in 1978 would have understood the term. A PSA authorized by the governing board o f a state public university, MCL 380.501(2)(a)( iv ), is definitively not a political subdivision of the state. A PSA is not itself a political subdivision of the state, nor is a state university. A PSA authorized by the governing board of a state public u niversity is not geographically limited, and it is responsive to the voters of the state of Michigan at large, not to voters of any particular locale. Therefore, those PSAs are not included in the definition of “Local Government” under § 33 of the Headlee Amendment, and any state funding they receive should not be counted under § 30 as part of “total state spending paid to all units of Local Government.” However , a side from state public universities, MCL 380.501(2)(a)( i ) to ( iii ) also empowers the boards of school districts, intermediate school districts, and community colleges to authorize PSAs. If, for example, a traditional school district

— a “local government” under § 33 of the Headlee Amendment

— experiments with the charter

- school model to provide educ ational services to local children, this might properly be counted as state spending to a unit of local government under § 30 . Accordingly, although a PSA is not itself a political subdivision of the state, the case had to be remanded to the Court of Appe als to consider whether state funding to PSAs authorized by a school district, an intermediate school district, or a community college should be counted as state spending paid to a unit of local government for purposes of § 30 of the Headlee Amendment.
3

. The Court of Appeals improperly held that state funds provided to local governments to satisfy state obligations under § 29 of the Headlee Amendment should not be counted in the calculation of total state spending to units of local government under § 30

. Section 29 requires the state to provide funding if the state requires a unit of local government to engage in a new activity or service , and § 29 prohibits the state from reducing the financed proportion of the necessary costs of any existing activity or service as provided for in 1978 . In this case, the Court of Appeals erred by relying on the drafters’ notes to § 29 without considering the plain language of the amendment. There are two types of state spending for purposes of § 30

— state spending paid to units of local government and all other state spending. Nothing in § 30 suggests that total state spending paid to all units of l ocal government should not include state spending to local governments to support both new and existing § 29 state mandate s. And § 29 is silent as to whether § 29 funds should be included or excluded in the § 30 calculation of total state spending to units of local government. State funding to a unit of local government is state funding to a unit of local government, whethe r that funding is tied to a state mandate or is unrestricted aid for discretionary spending. Accordingly, state funding provided to units of local government as required by § 29 should be counted for purposes of total state spending paid to all units of l ocal government under § 30, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed on Count IV.
4. The Court of Appeals’ grant of mandamus was vacated. To obtain the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the plaintiff has a clear legal right to performance of the specific duty sought; that the defendant has a clear legal du ty to perform; that the act is ministerial; and that no other adequate legal or equitable remedy exists thatmight achieve the same result . In this case, plaintiffs did not provide any argument or explanation regarding mandamus except for a single mention in the prayer for relief of their complaint that requested mandamus relief directing the state to comply with the reporting require ments of MCL 21.235 and MCL 21.241. When plaintiffs moved for summary disposition, they again included no in

- depth discussion of the mandamus issue. Accordingly, there was a question as to whether the request for mandamus was even adequately pleaded. Th e Court of Appeals’ grant of mandamus was puzzling. I t was unclear in many respects ; it vaguely ordered “the state through its officers and departments” to comply with MCL 21.235 and MCL 21.241 when those statutes apply to the governor (who was not a name d defendant in this action) and to the Department of Technology, Man agement, and Budget; and it was unclear whether the duties to be performed were ministerial or involved the exercise of discretion. Moreover, the panel’s explanation that the writ of mand amus was to be “prospective only” because plaintiffs “waived their claim to compensation for the state’s past practice of counting funding for new or increased mandates for purposes of § 30” appeared to be unrelated to the actual mandamus relief granted

— co mpliance with the annual reporting requirements of MCL 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241. Accordingly, because the nature of the relief requested or granted was unclear , Part III(D) of the Court of Appeals opinion had to be vacated, and this issue was remanded to the Court of Appeals with the direction that it specify which defendant is failing to perform which clear legal duty and that it analyze whether granting the extraordinary writ of mandamus was warranted. Part III(B) of the Court of Appeals opinion affirm ed; Parts III(C) and (D) of the Court of Appeals opinion reversed; Part III(E) of the Court of Appeals opinion vacated; and case remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider whether PSA funding should be counted as spending paid to a unit of local governme nt if the authorizing body of the PSA is a school district, intermediate school district, or community college and to clarify the Court of Appeals’ grant of mandamus relief.
Justice V IVIANO , joined by Justice Z AHRA , concurring in part and dissenting in p art, agreed with the majority’s decision in all respects except as to Part VI regarding funding for PSAs

. B ecause PSAs , as a category, qualify as political subdivisions of the state under Const 1963, art 9, § 33 , Justice V IVIANO would have held that state spending for PSA s is properly considered

“ spending paid to all un its of L ocal G overnment ” under Const 1963, art 9, § 30. The definition of “Local Government” in Const 1963, art 9, § 33 contemplates a broad and inclusive definition of that term

. I t means “any” political subdivision , and t he phrase “including, but n ot restricted to” contemplates that there are entities that qualify as local governments beyond those explicitly listed

. At the time that the Headlee Amendment was ratified, political subdivisi ons had pertinent characteristics that include d a geographically limited unit of government, formed to exercise political power, and that is beholden to a local electorate . They also operated as a division of the state to exercise some governmental functi on for the public benefit, had a capacity for self

governance, and sometimes wielded the power of taxation. Those characteristics should be considered in the context of the enumerated examples provided in § 33 because the Court cannot define the general t erm “political subdivision” in a way that would exclude one or more of those examples. PSAs have characteristics similar to both school districts and authorities that existe d in 1978. Like school districts, PSAs provide educational services; these servic es are a governmental function operated for the public benefit. Certain PSAs also operate in a limited geographic area in a similar manner to certain authorities and school districts. PSAs also resemble other authorities that do not have strict geographi c boundaries but will be confined by necessity to a certain area of operations. Next, while PSA s lack the power of taxation, this factor was not dispositive; authoritiesoften lack ed this power, yet § 33 still lists them as examples of political subdivisi ons. School districts also lack the power to raise operating funds through the imposition of property taxes after the passage of Proposal A, Const 1963, art 9, § 11 . Finally, PSAs have sufficient ability to self

govern and have electorate control through the public authorizing bodies

. Because the governing bodies of authorities in existence in 1978 were almost universally chosen

— not by the electorate directly, but by the participating municipalities or state officers

— a political subdivision does not need to have either direct electoral control or total self

- governance for purposes of the Headlee Amendment. Rather, in light of the authorities in existence at the time of ratification, so long as there is some public, electoral control of a political subdiv ision through an authorizing body, municipality, or state officer, that is enough to weigh in favor of finding that an entity is a political subdivision. Accordingly, Justice V IVIANO would have held that PSAs qualify as political subdivisions under § 33 a nd that state spending for PSAs qualifies as part of the total state spending paid to all units of local government under § 30.
Justice C LEMENT , concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the Court’s resolution of the substantive Headlee Amendment claims but dissented as to the Court’s disposition of the state’s challenge to the Court of Appeals’ issuance of the writ of mandamus. While she concurred with the Court’s decision to vacate the entire mandamus portion of the Court of Appeals opinion, because this aspect of plaintiffs’ case was inadequately pleaded , Ju stice C LEMENT would not have direct ed that Court to continue struggling on remand with an issue that was not adequately framed . In this case, all four of plaintiffs’ count s in their complaint were substantive Headlee Amendment claims; not one was a count seeking a writ of mandamus. The only mention of mandamus in the complaint was a single line in the prayer for relief. The complaint offered no allegations about what lega l duties MCL 21.235 and MCL 21.241 impose on any public officers, and no actual public officers were named as defendants. The Court of Appeals similarly did not address which officers needed to perform which duties. The burden was on plain tiffs to plead facts establishing the elements of the cause of action, and plaintiffs here did not even list mandamus as one of the counts in their complaint. Therefore, Justice C LEMENT would have simply held that plaintiffs’ complaint was inadequate and would have vacate d Part III(E) of the Court of Appeals opinion without directing the Court to work further on the mandamus issue on remand.FILED July 28, 2021

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
SUPREME COURT

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIG AN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVER NMENT, STEVE DUCHANE, RANDA LL BLUM, and SARA KANDEL , Plaintiff s
- Appell ants ,

v No. 160658
STATE OF MICHIGAN , DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAG EMENT AND BUDGET, and OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL , Defendant s
- Appell ees
.

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIG AN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVER NMENT, STEVE DUCHANE, RANDA LL BLUM, and SARA KANDEL , Plaintiff s
- Appell ees , Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan 

# OPINION Chief Justice: Bridget M. M cCormack Justices: Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch2 v No. 160660 STATE OF MICHIGAN, D EPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAG EMENT AND BUDGET, and OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL , Defendant s
- Appell ants

.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
C AVANAGH , J

. I. INTRODUCTION
At issue in this case is a dispute over what monies should be included in calculating

“ total state spending paid to all units of L ocal G overnment ” under § 30 of the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, § 30. P laintiffs argue that the state is shortchanging units of local government by improperly inflating that figure

. Specifically, p laintiffs allege that

“ Proposal A ” payments that the state direct s to school districts pursuant to Const 1963, art 9, § 11 should no t be counted and that neither should state spending for state

- mandated
local services and acti vities under Const 1963, art 9, § 29. We disagree. Both are properly counted as part of total state spending paid to units of local government for purposes of the
Headlee Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm Part III ( B ) and reverse Part III ( D ) of the Court of Appeals opinion. Plaintiffs also argue that state aid to public school academies (PSA s ) 1 should not be counted as part of the total state spending paid to units of local government under § 30

. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, concluding that
PSAs are “school districts , ” a type of “Local Government” specified in § 33, and, therefore,

1 Commonly referred to as charter schools.3 that their state funding is properly count ed as part of “total state spending paid to all units
of Local Government.” We conclude , however, that the panel erred when it held that PSAs
are “school districts” as the term is used in the Headlee Amendment. W e further hold that
PSAs are themselves not a “political subdivision of the state” as voters would have
understood the term when the Headlee Amendment was ratified. It is unclear, however,
whether the fact that a PSA’s authorizing body , such as a school district, intermediate school district, or community college , might be an entity con sidered a “ L ocal G overnment ” changes that general conclusion. Therefore, we reverse the conclusion reached in Part
III ( C ) of the Court of Appeals opinion that PSAs are “school districts” and remand to the Court of Appeals for its re consideration of this i ssue. Finally, we vacate the panel ’ s grant of mandamus in Part III ( E ) and direct the Court of Appeals to provide further explanation of its decision to grant this extraordinary remedy.
II. THE HEADLEE AMENDM ENT We begin with a brief overview of the constitutional framework at issue. In 1978, Michigan voters approved an amendment of our state C onstitution ; that amendment is popularly known as the Headlee Amendment. See Const 1963, art 9, § 6 and §§ 25 to 34. 2
The Headlee Amendment was born out of a nationwide “ taxpayers revolt ” and was meant

to limit legislative expansion of requirement s placed on local government, put a freeze on
what had been perceived as excessive government spending, and lower taxes at bo th the
local and state level s
. Bolt v Lansing , 459 Mich 152, 161; 587 NW2d 264 (1998). To

2 The amendment added §§ 25 through 34 to Article 9 of the Michigan Constitution and amended § 6 of Article 9.4 accomplish this, the Headlee Amendment sets forth “ a fairly complex system of revenue
and tax limits. ” Durant v Michigan , 456 Mich 175, 182; 566 NW2d 272 (1997). Although the Headlee Amendment has been the focus of much litigation since its inception, relatively little attention has been paid to § 30

— the centerpiece of the instant

case . Section 30 provides in full: The proportion of total state spending paid to al l units of Local Government, taken as a group, shall not be reduced below that proportion in effect in fiscal year 1978

- 79. [Const 1963, art 9, § 30.] The parties agree that to maintain 1978

– 1979 levels of state spendi ng to units of local government as required by § 30 , at least 48.97% of state spending must be paid to “ units
of L ocal G overnment. ” 3 This Court has explained that the phrase “ taken as a group ” in § 30 requires only that the “ overall percentage allotment of the state budget for local units

o f government must remain at 1978 levels

. ” Durant v State Bd of Ed , 424 Mich 364, 393; 381 NW2d 662 (1985). This means that neither specific individual unit s of local government ( e.g., the c ity of Lansing) nor classes of units of local government ( e.g., cities)

are entitled to the same proportion of the allotment for units of local g overnment as they
received in 1978

– 19 7 9.

3 As discussed further, the Headlee Amendment defines “Local Government” as “any political subdivision of the state, including, but not restricted to, school districts, cities, villages, townships, charter townships, counties, charter counties, authorities created by the state, and authorities created by other units of local government.” Const 1963, art 9, § 33.5 III. FACTUAL B ACKGROUND & PROCEDUR AL HISTORY Plaintiffs, Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Government and certain individual taxpay ers, filed this original action 4 in the Court of Appeals , seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief against the s tate of Michigan ; the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) ; and the Office of the Auditor General (collectively , “ the state ” or “ the state defendants ” )

. The basis of these claims is plaintiffs ’
belief that the s tate is violating and evading the Headlee Amendment in the way that it counts and classifies monies paid to units of local government. There are three specif ic counts of plaintiffs ’ complaint at issue in this appeal. First, in Count I , plaintiffs allege that
the s tate defendants violated §§ 25 and 30 by classifying monies paid to school districts pursuant to Proposal A, Const 1963, art 9, § 11, as state spend ing paid to units of local government. Second, in Count II , plaintiffs allege that the state defendants violated those same provisions by classifying monies p aid to PSAs as state spending to units of local government. Third, in plaintiffs ’ Count IV , 5 they allege that funds directed to units of local government for state mandates pursuant to § 29 of the Headlee Amendmen t should not be counted toward calculating state funding under § 30. Following discovery and motion practice, both plaintiffs and defen dants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact)

. In a published decision on reconsideration , the Court of Appeals granted the state

4 “Any taxpayer of the state shall have standing to bring suit in the Michigan State Court of Appeals to enforce the provisions of Sections 25 through 31

. . . .” Const 1963, art 9, § 32.

5 A third count related to road funding is no longer at issu e.6 defendants summary disposition on Count I , holding that Proposal A spe nding is properly categorized as state funding to a unit of local government. Taxpayers for Mich
Constitutional Gov ’ t v Michigan (On Reconsideration) , 330 Mich App 295, 310; 948 NW2d 91 (2019) (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 3 32 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id . at 337 ( B ORRELLO , P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

. The panel majority also granted summary disposition to the state defendants on Count II ,

over a partial dissent from Judge M ETER , holding that state aid to PSAs falls within the scope of state spending to units of local government under § 30. Id . at 311 (opinion by
S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 337 ( B ORRELLO , P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

. The panel majority granted plaintiffs ’ motion for summ ary disposition on Count IV , over a partial dissent from Judge B ORRELLO , holding that state spending to fund state

- mandated local services as required by § 29 should not be included in the state ’ s calculation of the proportion of total state spending under § 30. Id . at 314 (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

. Finally, the panel granted plaintiffs mandamus relief and directed the state to comply with reporting requirements
found in MC L 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241. Id . at 319

- 320 (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id . at 333 ( B ORRELLO , P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

. Both plaintiffs and defendants , left unsatisfied by various asp ects of the Court of Appeals ’ decision , filed separate applications for leave to appeal in this Court. We granted both parties ’ applications for leave to appeal and directed them to address the issues
discussed herein

. Taxpayers for Mich Constitutional G ov ’t v Mich igan , 505 Mich 1136 (2020).7 IV. STANDARD OF R EVIEW

“ 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 NW2d 650 (2019)

. This
Court ’ s primary objective is to “ realize the intent of the people by whom and for whom the
constitution was ratified. ” Id . at 129

- 130 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, we employ th e rule of common understanding: “ The interpretation that should be gi ven it is that which reasonable minds, the great mass of the people themselves , would give it. ” Traverse City Sch Dist v Attorney General , 384 Mich 390, 405; 185 NW2d 9 (1971) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining the common understandin g of the
voters, t he Court may also consider the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished by the provision. Id

. A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a claim. El

- Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc , 504 Mich 152, 160; 934 NW2d 665 (2019) . Summary disposition under this rule is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Id

. V. COUNT I
In Count I , plaintiffs argue that by including Proposal A fun ding paid to school
districts when calculating total state spending paid to units of local government, the state
defendants violate § 30 of the Headlee Amendment. Like the Court of Appeals panel, we disagree.
In 199 3, the Legislature passed 19 9 3 PA 145, “ which effectively eliminated the authority of school districts to levy millage on real property for local and intermediate
sch ool district operating expenses

. . . . ” Durant v Michigan , 238 Mich App 185, 195

- 196;8 60 5 NW2d 66 (1999) . This resulted in billions of dollars in lost revenue for school districts.
Id

. at 196. The reafter, the Legislature passed 1993 PA 336, “ which would fund school
districts through an increase in the personal income and single business tax rate, the creation of a new real estate transfer tax, and the levying of a certain level of millage unless the electorate adopted a proposed amendment of the Michigan Constitution

. . . .” Id

. I n 1994 Michigan voters ratified constitutional amendment s intended to make up for that lost revenue, popularly known as “ Proposal A. ” Const 1963, art 9, §§ 3, 5, 8, and 11. P roposal
A “ authorized an increase in the state sales and use tax for use in school aid, limited use of local property taxes for school p urposes, and authorized other changes in school finance. ”
Durant , 456 M ich at 21 1 n 42. Pertinent here, the new and additional tax revenue collected pursuant to Proposal A was largely dedicated to the State School Aid Fund ; those funds

are used for aid t o school districts, higher education, and school employees ’ retirement systems. Const 1963, art 9, § 11. U nder Proposal A , therefore, the responsibility for school funding was no longer a purely local endeavor supported by local property taxes but instead

was managed at the state level through increased statewide taxation

. After Proposal A passed, state defendant DTMB began including spending from Proposal A revenue in its calculation of total state spending paid to units of local government under § 30 of the
Headlee Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that by including Proposal A funds paid to school districts out of the
State School Aid Fund in the calculation of total state spending paid to units of local government under § 30 , the state is violating § 2 5 of the Headlee Amendment . Section 25 provides:9 Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. The state is prohibited from requiring any ne w or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government

. A provision for emergency conditions i s established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed. Implementation of this section is specified in Sections 26 through 34, inclusive, of this Article. [Const 1963, art 9, § 25 (emphasis added).] Plaintiffs argue that b y u sing Proposal A revenue in the calculation of total state spending paid to units of local government, the s tate has impermissibly shifted the tax burden to local governments. This is because post

- Proposal A, a larger share of the 48.97% of state spending goes to schools instead of other units of local government , and this forces local governments to raise taxes in order to provide services that the state had p reviously funded.
The first flaw in plaintiffs’ argument, as the Court of Appeals majority recognized , is that § 25 of the Headlee Amendment is a preface meant to provide context to the
amendment as a whole , not an independent statement of a substantive right

. Taxpayers , 330 Mich App at 30 0 n 1. In fact, this Court has stated that it is “ quit e clear that § 25 is merely an introduction ” to the following sections of the Headlee Amendment, “ not an independent statement of rights or duties. ” Durant , 424 Mich at 376 n 4

. 6 The plain

6 The Court of Appeals has reached a similar conclusion several times

. See Commuter Tax Ass’n of Metro Detroit v Detroit , 109 Mich App 667, 670; 311 NW2d 449 (1981) (“Headlee, [§ ] 25, states a general purpose, but, by its own terms, is implemented by the sections which follow

. . . .”); Waterford Sch Dist v State Bd of Ed , 130 Mich App 614, 620; 344 NW2d 19 (1983) (describing § 25 as “an introductory paragraph to the amendment whic h, by its very language, indicates that its substantive implementation is specified in the sections of the statute which follow”); Jackson Co v Jackson , 302 Mich App 90, 93 n 1; 836 NW2d 903 (2013) (rejecting the independent enforcement of § 25).10 language of § 25 supports this conclusion because it denotes that its “ [ i ] mplementation ” is specified in §§ 26 through 34 of Article 9 . Const 1963, art 9, § 25; Durant , 456 Mich at 182 (explaining that the system of revenue and tax limits created by the Headlee
Amendment are “ summarized ” in § 25 and then “ implemented in the following sections ” ). 7
P laintiffs point to the Drafters ’ Notes of the Headlee Amendment , which state that § 25 “specifically prohibits the state from circumventing the intent of the amendment by shifting tax burdens from the state to local governm ental levels

. ” 8 While the Drafters’
Notes are “one too l available to the courts,” they are not authoritative because the notes

were not published until after the amendment was passed and “the drafters’ intent might have been different than the meaning giv en by the great mass of people

. . . .” Durant , 456 Mich at 195

- 196 . Accordingly, the Drafters’ Notes are generally “given little weight when the intent of those who ratified or voted for adoption is manifested otherwise.” Durant , 424 Mich at 382 n 12. R eliance on the Drafters’ Notes where, as here, the constitutional language is clear is inappropriate. American Axle & Mfg v Hamtramck , 461 Mich 352,

7 Even we re we to assume for the sake of argument that § 25 is a substantive provision, there are reasons to believe that any shifting that took place is not the type that the Headlee Amendment would prohibit. Section 25 states, “The state is prohibited

. . . from shifting the tax burden to local government.” Const 1963, art 9, § 25 (emphasis added). If a shift occurred here, it was at the behest of the voters through the passage of Proposal A. Moreover, the responsibility for school funding shifted from local g overnment to the state, not from the state to local government as prohibited by § 25.

8 Taxpayers United Research Institute, Drafters’ Notes

— Tax Limitation Amendment (Proposal E, approved by the electors on November 7, 1978, as an Amendment to the Michigan Constitution of 1963), § 25, p 3.11 362; 604 NW2d 330 (2000). T o the extent that the Drafters’ Notes are relevant, however, they explicitly provide : The Preamble to the Amendment, Section 25, serves as a summary of Sections 26 through 34, inclusive and Section 6, as amended; and spells out

. . . the objectives, purposes, and intent of the drafters, petitioners and the voters

. . . . [Taxpayers United Research Institute, Drafters’ Notes

— Tax Limitation Amendment (Proposal E, approved by the electors on November 7, 1978, as an Amendment to the Michigan Constitution of 1963), § 25, p p 2

- 3 (emphasis added).] In other words, the Drafters’ Notes confirm that the drafters themselves did not view § 25 as an independent source of substantive restrictions but as a “ [ p ] reamble ” or “ summary ”
of the rest of the Headlee Amendment

. 9
Because § 25 is not a provision that can be independently enforced , our inquiry into whether Proposal A funding should be counted as part of “ total state spending paid to all units of Local Government, taken as a group ” under § 3 0 is straightforward. The Headlee
Amendment explicitly provides that “ Local Government ” inclu des “ school districts. ” Const 1963, art 9, § 33. Proposal A funding paid to school districts is state funding paid
out of the State School Aid Fund. 10 Very simply, P roposal A funding is money collected
and disbursed by the state to a unit of local govern ment. W hen determining “ total state

9 Taking § 25 line by line evidences its summary nature. The first sentence, “Property t axes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direc t voter approval,” speaks to § § 26 and 31. The second sentence, “The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government,” refers to § 29, § 30, and then back to § 29, respectively. The third sentence, “A provision for emergency conditions is established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebte dness is guaranteed,” concerns § 27.

10 See State School Aid Act, MCL 388.1601 et seq

.12 spending to all units of Local Government, taken as a group, ” it is , therefore, accurate to include Proposal A funds in that calculation. Plaintiffs’ argument would require this Court to improperly read a nonexistent e xception into the § 30 calculation by excluding one type of state spending to a local government. While plaintiffs believe that the relationship between Proposal A and the Headlee
Amendment undermines the purpose of the Headlee Amendment, the se provisions are coequal constitutional am endments. E ven were we to conclude that Proposal A frustrates
the spirit of the Headlee Amendment by creating a new source of tax revenue for the state
to collect and disburse and then counting that in the § 30 calculation of total state spending , the decision to adopt Proposal A was a choice the voters made

. 11 “ [T]he voters themselves determine any constitutional requirements and are fully in control of what will be mandated by the constitution through the ratification proces s. ” Durant , 424 Mich 379 n 6.
While state funding t o units of local government has changed post

- Proposal A, the
Headlee Amendment never guaranteed a particular level of funding to any particular unit of local government

. Durant , 424 Mich at 393. With th e inclusion of Proposal A funding in the § 30 calculation, it simply cannot be said that units of local government “ taken as a

11 We reject plaintiffs’ speculation that the voters were totally unaware of the potential impacts that Proposal A could have on the function of the Headlee Amendment. In fact, plaintiffs’ own evidence on this point

— a May 14, 1993 Detroit News article entitled “Headlee C riticizes Proposal A as ‘ T ax S hift and T ax I ncreas e’ ”

— reveals that there was public discourse on this very topic before the adoption of Proposal A. The article, published almost a year before Proposal A was ratified, details how Richard Headlee, author of the Headlee Amendment, criticized Proposal A as a “major tax shift” and argued that it would “gut[] Section 30 and protection of local government revenue sharing”

— the very same arguments that plaintiffs raise today. Cain, Headlee C riticizes Proposal A as

‘ T

ax S hift and T ax I ncrease’ , Detroit News (May 14, 1993), p 2B.13 gro up ” have collectively suffered. 12 In sum, § 25 of the Headlee Amendment is not a n independent source of a substantive right on which plaintiffs can rely , and their arguments find no support in the plain language of § 30. On Count I, therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeals ’ grant of summary disposition to the state defendants.
VI. COUNT II
Plaintiffs ’ C ount II is also concerned with school funding, but of a different type

— funding for PSAs

. Plaintiffs argue that money paid to PSAs out of the state ’ s School Aid Fund should not be used to calculate total state spending to units of local government under § 30 of the Headlee Amendmen t

. The Headlee Amendment specifically defines “Local Government” as “any political subdivision of the state, including, but not restricted to, school districts, cities, villages, townships, charter townships, counties, charter counties,
authorities create d by the state, and authorities created by other units of local government.” Const 1963, art 9, § 33. The Court of Appeals concluded that a PSA is a “school district” within the meaning of § 33, making it a unit of “Local Government.” We disagree.
In 1 993, t he Legislature authorized the creation of PSA s . A PSA is a state

- supported public school operating under a charter contract issued by a public authorizing body. 13 MCL 380.501(1) of t he Revised School Code , MCL 380.1 et seq ., provides that a PSA is

12 In fact, post

- Proposal A, although units of local government other than schools may receive a lesser percentage of the 48.97% portion of the state budget, it seems that each percentage point likely represents more money because the state now takes in additional revenue from Proposal A associated sales tax.

13 See Michigan Department of Education , Michigan Charter Schools

— Questions and Answers (November 2017 rev), p 1, available at < https://www.michigan.gov/documents/PSAQA_54517_7.pdf > (accessed June 17, 2021) [https://perma.cc/FPS6

- ZWG3].14 “ a school district for the purposes of section 11 of article IX of the state constitution of
1963

. . . . ” That constitutional provision , Const 1963, art 9, § 11 , adopted as part of Proposal A, provides for the creation of the State School Aid Fund. The State School Aid
Act ’ s definition of “ district ” also includes both local school distric ts and PSAs. MCL 388.1603(7).
O n the basis of these authorities , the Court of Appeals majority concluded that PSAs receive state funding earmarked for school districts and are , therefore, school districts for the purpose of receiving state school aid. Taxpayers , 330 Mich App at 312 (opinion by
S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 337 ( B ORRELLO , P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

. We find no error in this conclusion, but whether the Legislature has decided to treat PSAs as

“ school districts ” for purposes of receiving state funding is beside the point

. The Legislature’s subsequent enactment of a statute cannot supersede the common understanding of a term adopted by the vot ers who ratified the constitutional amendment.
See Pillon v Attorney General , 345 Mich 536, 547; 77 NW2d 257 (19 5 6) (“Neither the legislature, nor this Court, has any right to amend or change a provision in the Constitution.”). Moreover , t he plain language of MCL 380.501(1) signifies that the Legislature intended that PSAs be considered a “ school district ” for a specific purpose by mentioning that PSAs are “ school districts ” under Const 1963, art 9, § 11 (establishing the
State School A i d F und). 14 Simply because a PSA is a “ school district ” for purposes of Proposal A funding does not necessarily mean that a PSA is also a “ school district ” as

14 MCL 380.501(1) also indicates that a PSA is a “public school” for purposes of Const 1963, art 8, § 2. See Council of Organizations & Others for Ed About Parochiaid, Inc v Governor , 455 Mich 557; 566 NW2d 208 (1997).15 contempl ated by the Headlee Amendment. In other words, that the Legislature authorized
the creation of PSAs and treats them as school districts for the specific purpose of receiving
aid from the State School Aid Fund tells us nothing about whether the voters would have
understood a PSA to be a “local government” for purposes of the Headlee Amendment.
In addition , we conclude that the Headlee voters would not consider PSAs as equivalent with “school districts” as the term was understood at the time the amendment
was ratified

. Like traditional school districts, PSAs deliver education to the students of
th is state, but they do not resemble traditional school districts in many other ways. For example, PSAs are orga nized as nonprofit corporations by a person or other entity , 15 while school districts are legislative creations. PSAs are not limited to a define d local geographic
area like school district s
. 16 Instead of a locally elected school board directly beholden to the voters of a school district, the governing body of a PSA is made up of a board of
d irector s compri sed of privately selected members. MCL 38 0.503(11). Unlike a school district board, the board of directors of a PSA may enter into a contract with an education

management corporation to manage or operate the PSA or to provide the PSA with instructional or other services. See MCL 380.503c; MCL 3 80.503 (6) (k) and (n). 17 A PSA

15 See Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq

. 16 State public universities, for example, are the authorizing bodies for about 70% of PSAs in this state. See State of Michigan, Public School Academies by Authorizer < https://www. michigan.gov/documents/mde/Schools_by_Authorizer_396738_7.pdf > (accessed June 22, 2021) [https://perma.cc/PU5Q

- 4E3Y]. A PSA must “be open to all pupils who reside within the geographic boundaries of that authorizing body,” MCL 380.504(3), which for a stat e
- public

- university authorizer is the entire state of Michigan.

17 See OAG, 1995

- 1996, No. 6,915 (September 4, 1996).16 is funded solely by the state and may not levy taxes like a school district. 18 A PSA , in fact,
is often viewed as an alternative to the traditional educational services offered by a school
district , not an equivalent

. 19 Accordingly, we conclude that a PSA is not a “school district”
as Headlee voters would have understood the term

. 20
As Judge M ETER recognized, because a PSA is not a “school district , ” a specific type of political subdivision of the state, our analysis must shift to whether a PSA can itself be categorized more generally as a “ political subdivision of the state. ” If so, then it is a

“ local government ” under Const 1963, art 9, § 33, and any state spending that it receives

18 We acknowledge the dissent’s argument that, following the passage of Proposal A, there are now limitations on the ability of school districts to raise operating funds through property taxes. However, t he voters approved Proposal A in 1994

— 16 years after the voters ratified the Headlee Amendment

— and w e focus our inquiry on the voters’ contemporaneous understanding of the term “school d istricts.” Walker v Wolverine Fabricating & Mfg Co, Inc , 425 Mich 586, 596; 391 NW2d 296 (1986) (“The paramount rule of constitutional construction is that the constitution should be given that interpretation which the great mass of people would have unde rstood when they ratified it.”). Moreover, unlike PSAs, school districts still retain significant powers of taxation. See, e.g., MCL 380.1212(1) (providing a taxing power to support a building

- and

- site sinking fund); MCL 380.1351(4) (providing a taxing p ower to service capital project debts); MCL 123.52 (providing a taxing power for recreational facilities and playgrounds).

19 See Furst, The Short But Very Curious Legal History of Michigan’s Charter Schools , 105 West’s Ed L Rep 1, 2 (1996) (“ These academ ies were to operate as public schools and thereby be competitive with existing school districts to provide a new initiative for schooling in Michigan, an initiative that would result in better education for the children of the state. ”).

20 We note that two of our attorneys general have concluded that a PSA is not a “school district” as a general proposition. See OAG, 1995

- 1996, No. 6,915 (September 4, 1996); OAG, 2003

- 2004, No. 7,154 (March 31, 2004). And we are not aware of any cases in which our state courts have concluded that PSAs are, as a general proposition, school districts.17 should be counted under § 30 when calc ulating total state spending to units of local government

. Because PSAs did not exist when the Headlee Amendment was ratified in
1978 , we agree with Judge M ETER ’ s instinct to consider construction of the term from both
before and shortly after the Headlee Amendment ’ s ratification to ascertain whether
Headlee voters would have considered a PSA to be a “ polit ical subdivision of the state. ” 21 We first look to an opinion from our A ttorney G eneral from 15 years before the voters passed the Headlee Amendment. OA G, 1963

- 1964, No. 4,037 (January 2, 1963). There, the A ttorney G eneral considered whether a county drainage district constituted a political subdivision of the state. As a general matt er, said the A ttorney G eneral, “ political
divisions of the state are those which are formed for the more effectual or convenient exercise of political power wit hin

. . . particular localities ” and have certain “ distinctive
marks. ” Id . at 3 (quotation marks and citation omitted). These distinctive marks include
that a poli tical subdivision of a state will embrace a certain territory and its inhabitants, organized for the public advantage, and not in the interest of particular individuals or classes; that their chief design is the exercise of governmental functions, and that to the electors residing within each is, to some extent, committed the power of local government, to be wielded either mediately or immediately, within their territory, for the peculiar benefi t of the people there residing. [ Id . (quotation marks and cita tion omitted).]

21 See McPherson v Blacker , 92 Mich 377 , 383 ; 52 NW 469 (1892) (“ ‘ [W]here a particular construction has been generally accepted as correct , and especially when this has occurred contemporaneously with t he adoption of the constitution, and by those who had opportunity to understand the intention of the instrument, it is not to be denied that strong presumption exists that the construction rightly interprets the i ntention.’ ”), quoting 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (1868) , p 67

.18 A few years after the Headlee Amendment was ratified, our Court of Appeals similarly

wrote that a ttrib utes “generally regarded as distinguishing a political subdivision are its existence for the purpose of discharging some function of local government, its prescribed area and its authority for self

- government through officers selected by it. ” People v Egleston , 114 Mich App 436, 440; 319 NW2d 563 (1982)

. Taken together, we conclude
that the Headlee voters would have understood a “ political subdivision of the state ” to mean

a geographically limited unit of government formed to exercise political power and that is
beholden to a local electorate. 22
Because PSAs provide educational services, they perform “ essential public purposes and governmental functions of this state

. ” MCL 380.501(1)

. But other
characteristics of PSAs lead us to agree with Judge M ETER that PSAs do not fall under the category of a “ politi cal subdivision of the state ” for largely the same reasons we concluded
that a PSA is not a “ school district ” as the term is used in the Headlee Amendment. 23 PSAs

are nonprofit corporations, which are private entities and not governmental bodies. PSA s do not have limited or local geographic boundaries. The governing body of a PSA is not elected by voters. The governing board of a PSA answers to its authorizing body, not to
local voters

. Council of Organizations & Others for Ed About Parochiaid, Inc v Governor ,

22 As the dissent points out, political subdivisions might also have other characteristics such as the capacity for self

- governance or the power of taxation.

23 The dissent concludes that the performance of essential public purposes and governmental functions of this state “weigh s heavily in favor of a finding that PSAs are political subdivisions.” We disagree. Numerous state agencies and even quasi

governmental entities perform esse ntial public purposes and governmental functions of this state yet would not be considered “political subdivisions of the state” as the term is used in relation to the definition of “Local Government” in § 33.19 455 Mich 557, 575; 566 NW2d 208 (1997). While “ the public maintains control of the schools through the authorizing bodies, ” i d . at 576, this control is much less direct , or even merely symbolic . Similarly, because a PSA is under the immediate control of its authorizing body, its ability to self

- govern is hindered and it h as no independent political power. In sum, while PSAs deliver traditional governmental services, their “ distinctive
marks ” are not those of a “ political subdivision of the state ” as the voters who ratified the
Headlee Amendment in 1978 w ould have understo od the term. The dissent discusses “authorities created by the state” and “authorities created by other units of local government,” which are two specifically enumerated types of “political
subdivisions of the state” listed in § 33. It points out that “ au thorities, ” such as water
authorities ; 24 garbage, rubbish, and dog

- pound authorities ; 25 and metropolitan district authorities, 26 were in existence at the time the Headlee Amendment was ratified, 27 yet they
have less well

- defined geographic boundaries, they lac k the power of taxation, and their governing bodies are not generally directly elected by the voters. Because authorities fall within the purview of § 33 and have these characteristics, the dissent reasons that PSAs

24 MCL 121.29 et seq

. 25 MCL 123.301 et seq

. 26 MCL 119. 1 et seq

.
27 The dissent also discusses the Mackinac Bridge Authority , created to construct and maintain the Mackinac Bridge. We are skeptical of the dissent’s conclusion that the Mackinac Bridge Authority qualifies as an authority created by the state that is also a political subdivision of the state for purposes of § 33 of the Headlee Amendment. Unlike the other authorities discussed, the Mackinac Bridge Authority is an instrumentality of the state, MCL 254.302(1), and does not exercise politic al power on behalf of a local population or have a mechanism for local electorate control.20 must also fall within the purview of th e definition of “political subdivision of the state” in § 33. We cannot say for certain that the authorities mentioned by the dissent would each qualify as political subdivisions of the state as contemplated by § 33 ; that is not the question
we are faced w ith today

. However, a ssuming that the authorities listed in the dissent are political subdivisions of the state, it does not follow that PSAs must also be political
subdivisions of the state. We detect differences between the two entities. First , we disagree
that the authorities discussed by the dissent do not have well

- defined geographic
boundaries given that they are generally made up of the territories comprising the local governmental units that agree to participate in the authority. 28 That c ertain authorities might have the ability to contract outside that territory 29 or operate within 10 miles of the territory 30 does not expand the authority’s own inherent territorial limits

. Second, as the dissent recognize s , the fact that a PSA cannot levy taxes is not dispositive of whether it is a political subdivision of the state. Some political subdivisions of the state, such as cities
or counties , may levy taxes, whereas others , such a s the authorities examined by the
dissent , generally cannot. Third , we agree with the dissent that authorities and PSAs are

28 For example, garbage, rubbish, and dog

- pound authorities “shall be comprised of the territory within such incorporating municipalities.” MCL 123.301. Similarly, metropolitan districts are comprised of the “territory within [the] respective limits” of two or more cities, villages, or townships. MCL 119.1.

29 See MCL 123.305(1) and (2) (authorizing garbage, rubbish, or dog

- pound authorities to enter into contracts w ith other units of local government).

30 See MCL 124.406(b) (allowing a metropolitan transportation authority to operate within a 10

- mile radius of the authorit y ’ s territory).21 generally similarly removed from direct electorate control. The level of direct electorate accountability , however, is not the same for every PSA. Overall, again assuming that the authorities ident ified in the dissent are all political subdivisions of the state, we do not find PSAs sufficiently analogous to them to conclude
that , if those authorities are political subdivisions of the state, PSAs must also be politi cal
subdivisions of the state. W e conclude that a PSA authorized by the governing board of a state public universit y , MCL 380.501(2)(a)( iv ) , is definitively not a political subdivision of
the state . A PSA is not itself a political subdivision of the state, nor is a state university.
A PSA au thorized by the governing board of a state public university is not geographically
limited , and it is responsive to the voters of the state of Michigan at large , 31 not to voters of any particular locale. Therefore, those PSAs are not included in the definition of “Local Government” under § 33 of the Headlee Amendment , and any state funding they receive should not be counted under § 30 as part of “total state spending paid to all units of L ocal
G overnment.” However , a side from state public universitie s, MCL 380.501(2)(a)( i ) to ( iii )
also empowers the boards of school districts, intermediate school districts, and community colleges to authorize PSAs

. 32 If , for example, a traditional school district

— a “ local government ” under § 33 of the Headlee Amendment

— experiments with the charter

- school model to provide educational services to local children, this might properly be counted as state spending to a unit of local government under § 30.

31 This can be either through appointment to a university’s governing board by th e g overnor or through statewide elections. Const 1963, art 8, §§ 5 and 6.

32 The authorizing body of a PSA “is the fiscal agent” of the PSA that receives payment from the state and “shall then forward the payment” to the PSA. MCL 380.507(3).22 We express no opinion on this issue because we believe it to b e worthy of further briefing and full consideration by our Court of Appeals. Accordingly, although we hold
that a PSA is not a political subdivision of the state, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals to consider whether state funding to PSAs author ized by a school district, an intermediate school district, or a community college should be counted as state spending to a unit of local government for purposes of § 30 of the Headlee Amendment.
VII. COUNT I V The next argument plaintiffs advance is that stat e funds provided to local governments to satisfy state obligations under § 29 of the Headlee Amendment should not
be counted in the calculation of total state spending to units of local government under § 30

. 33 The Court of Appeals majority agreed

. Taxpay ers , 330 Mich App at 314 (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.); id . at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). H owever,

we concur with the dissenting judge because the majority’s analysis ignores the plain language of the amendment. Therefore, we reverse.
Section 29 of the Headlee Amendment provides: The state is hereby prohibited from reducing the state financed proportion of the necessary costs of any existing activity or service required of units of Local Government by state law. A new act ivity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond that required by existing law shall not be required by the legislature or any state agency of units of Local Government, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed to pa y the unit of Local Government for any necessary increased

33 We note that the parties present this argument largely in the abstract and have not provided the Court with examples of state

- mandated and state

- funded programs that are accounted for in the 48.97% portion of the state budget for local government spending but that plaintiffs believe should count toward the 51.03% portion of the state’s budget.23 costs. The provision of this section shall not apply to costs incurred pursuant to Article VI, Section 18. [Const 1963, art 9, § 29.] Through § 29 , the Headlee Amendment sought to maintain state funding for state

mandated programs in effect when the amendment was passed and to ensure that if the state mandated any new activities or servi ces , those activities or services would come with

c oncomitant state funding. Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v Michiga n , 460 Mich 590, 595; 597 NW2d 113 (1999). Section 29 “reflect[s] an effort on the part of the voters to forestall any attempt by the Legislature to shift responsibility for servic es to the local government, once its revenues were limited by the Headlee Amendment, in order to save the money it would have had to use to provide the services itself. ” Durant , 424 Mich at 379. According to plaintiffs, when the Legislature requires “ [a] new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or ser vice ” and “ a state appropriation is made and disbursed to pay the unit of Local G overnment for any necessary increased costs, ” Const 1963, art 9, § 29, that money should not be included in calculating the 48.97% of “ total state spending paid to all units o f Local G overnment ” unde r § 30. If it is counted, argue plaintiffs, the state may impose funded mandates that reduce the state’s “ required ” payments to local governments. P laintiffs suggest that , in theory, the state could earmark every dollar of the req uired 48.97% funding for state

- mandated local activities or services and leave $0 for local government discretionary spending. The Court of Appeals majority agreed, concluding that “ when §§ 29 and 30 are read together, they require the state to fully fund the necessary implementation costs of any new mandate imposed on a unit of local government and to provide this funding in addition to the funding paid in satisfaction of the state ’ s § 30 revenue

- sharing obligation. ” Taxpayers ,24 330 Mich App at 314 (opinio n by S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) . In support, the panel majority looked to the Drafters’ Notes associated with § 30

. T he Drafters’ Notes state that the “primary intent” of § 30 was to “prevent a shift in tax burden, either directly or indirectly from state to local responsibility”
and that “[a]dditional or expanded activities mandated by the state, as described in Section 29 would tend to increase the proportion of total state sp ending paid to local government
above that level in effect when this section becomes effective.” Drafters’ Notes , § 30,
p p 10

- 11. This note, said the majority, supports plaintiffs’ position by “evinc[ing] an intent
that state

- funding obligations aris ing from new § 29 obligations are to be paid in addition to § 30 revenue sharing.” Taxpayers , 330 Mich App at 316 (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.) ; id

. at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

. The majority erred, however, by relying on the Drafters’ Notes without consider ing the plain language of the amendment

. American Axle & Mfg, Inc v Hamtramck , 461 Mich 352, 362; 604 NW2d 330 (2000) (“[R]eliance on extrinsic evidence [is] inappropriate because the constitutional language is clear.” ). 34 The calculation of total state spending paid to units of local government under § 30, as discussed in regard to Count I, is

34 The majority also relied on the Drafters’ Notes for § 30 without mentioning the Drafters’ Notes for § 29. Although we give little weight to these notes, Durant , 424 Mich a t 382 n 12, we take notice that the § 29 note explicitly states: This section does not necessarily prevent the state from shifting funds from general and unrestricted revenue sharing to the funding of a state mandated activity but it does prohibit shiftin g funds from state mandated programs unless the mandate for such programs is eliminated. [ Drafters’ Notes , § 29, p 10 (emphasis added).] This note supports that funding for discretionary spending is not required.25 straightforward. There are two types of state spending for purposes of § 30

— state spending paid to units of local government a nd all other state spending. The former must make up at least 48.97% of the state budget , and the latter may make up no more than 51.03% of the state budget. Plaintiffs do not argue that the § 29 mandate d spending is not

“ state spending, ” nor do they arg ue that it is not spending that is paid to a “ unit [] of L ocal
G overnment. ” Const 1963, art 9, § 30. Nothing in § 30 suggests that “total state spending paid to all units of L ocal G overnment” should not include state spending to local governments to support both new and existing § 29 state mandates. P laintiffs ’ argument similarly find s no support in the text of § 29. Section 29 requires the state to provide funding if the state requires a unit of local government to engage in a new activity or
servi ce , and § 29 prohibits the state from reducing the financed proportion of the necessary costs of any existing activity or service as provided for in 1978. It is silent as to whether § 29 funds should be included or exc luded in the § 30 calculation of tota l state spending to units of local government

. We do not read language into these provisions that is simply not there. The Court of Appeals majority reasoned that if state spending to fund new state mandates under § 29 could be counted for § 30, it would “supplant state spending intended for local use” and force the same money to perform “double duty.” Taxpayers , 330 Mich App at 316

- 3 17 (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

. But this conc lusion effectively creates a new category of spending

— “state spending intended for local discretionary use,” which is not a type of state spending recognized by
the Headlee Amendment

— and then treats that category as uncountable under § 30. This
is a strai ned construction not grounded in the language of the amendment. Instead, we26 agree with Judge B ORRELLO that, with no stated prohibition to the contrary in the plain language of the amendment , “the state is free to shift or reallocate

. . . general and

unre stricted revenue sharing paid under § 30 to fund the necessary costs incurred by units of local government in providing newly enacted state

- mandated activity or service or an increase in an existing mandated activity or service without violating the scheme of the
Headlee Amendment.” Taxpayers , 330 Mich App at 336 ( B ORRELLO , P. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Therefore , w e agree with Judge B ORRELLO that state funding provided to units of local government as required by § 29 should be counted for purposes of “total state spending paid to all units of Local Government” under § 30 and that this conclusion “best honors the voters’ intent neither to freeze legislative discretion to enact necessary and desirable legislation in response t o changing times and conditions nor to permit state government unrestricted discretion in its allocation of support for mandated activities and
services.” Taxpayers , 330 Mich App at 336

- 337 ( B ORRELLO , P.J. , concurring in part and dissenting in part ) . Sta te funding to a unit of local government is state funding to a unit of local government, whether that funding is tied to a state mandate or is unrestricted aid for discretionary spending

. A ccordingly , we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on Cou nt IV

. VIII. MANDAMUS Finally, plaintiffs sought and were granted a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeal s . We vacate the grant of mandamus and remand to the Court of Appeals to clarify its reasoning or reconsider its decision as it deems appropriate.27 “The primary purpose of the writ of mandamus is to enforce duties created by law where the law has established no specific remedy and where, in justice and good government, there should be one.” State Bd of Ed v Houghton Lake Community Sch , 430 Mich 658, 666; 425 NW2d 80 (1988) (citations omitted)

. To obtain this extraordinary remedy, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that “ (1) the plaintiff has a clear, legal right to performance of the specific duty sought, (2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial, and (4) no other adequate legal or equitable remedy exists that might achieve the same result. ” Rental Prop s Owners Ass ’ n of Kent Co v Kent
Co Treasurer , 308 Mich App 498, 518 ; 866 NW2d 817 (2014). “ A minister ial act is one in which the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment. ” Hillsdale Co S enio r Servs, Inc v Hillsdale Co , 494 Mich 46, 58 n 11; 832 NW2d 728 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
I n the prayer for relief of their complaint filed in the Court of Appeal s , plaintiffs requested “[m] andamus relief directing the State of Michigan to fully comply with the reporting requirements of MCL 21 .235 and 21.241 [

. ] ” They did not provide any argument or explanation about this requested relief or otherwise elaborate in their brief in support of the complaint. These statutes, which implement the Headlee Amendment , impose certain reporting requirement s on the governor, MCL 21.235(3), and defendant DTMB, MCL 21.241. MCL
21.235 (3) requires that the g overnor include with the annual budget recommendation an accompanying report of the amount of state disbursements required to be paid to each local
unit of government for the necessary cost of each state requirement and the total amount28 of all disbursement s to be paid to l ocal government. MCL 21.241 requires DTMB to collect and tabulate various information, including: (a) The state financed proportion of the necessary cost of an existing activity or service required of local units of government by existing law. (b) The nature and scope of each state requirement which shall require a disbursement under [MCL 21.235]

. (c) The nature and scope of each action impo sing a potential cost on a local unit of government which is not a state requirement and does not require a disbursement under this act. (2) The information shall include: (a) The identity or type of local unit and local unit agency or official to whom the state requirement or required existing activity or service is directed. (b) The determination of whether or not an identifiable local direct cost is necessitated by state requirement or the required existing activity or service. (c) The amount of state fi nancial participation, meeting the identifiable local direct cost. (d) The state agency charged with supervising the state requirement or the required existing activity or service. (e) A brief description of the purpose of the state requirement or the requ ired existing activity or service, and a citation of its origin in statute, rule, or court order. [MCL 21.241(1) and (2).] DTMB is then directed to publish this information in a report and submit it to the
L egislature. MCL 21.241( 3 ). And the report is t o be updated annually. Id

. In their answer to the complaint, the state defendants denied that they had not complied with MCL 21.235 but admitted that they had not completed the reporting requirements of MCL 21.241. When plaintiffs moved for summary dispo sition, they again29 included no in

- depth discussion of the mandamus issue. In fact, because of plaintiffs’ lack of any explanation accompanying their request for mandamus relief, the state defendants argued that the claim had been abandoned. We question, therefore, whether the request for
mandamus was even adequately ple aded

. Despite these shortcomings, the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs their requested relief, explaining: It is clear that MCL 21.241 establishes a legislatively mandated duty that the state, through its officers and departments, collect, report, and place on the public record certain information regarding the state ’ s compliance with the Headlee Amendment. The state has breached this duty. It is equally clear that the acts required by these statutory provisions are ministerial and that the failure of the state to undertake such acts undermines the right and role of taxpayer oversight and enforcement conferred by Const 1963, art 9, § 32. As noted by plaintiffs, the failure of the state to comply with the dictates of MCL 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241 “prevents taxpayers from knowing what mandated activity is funded and what is unfunded” and “prevents taxpayers from specifically identifying mandated activi ty that is included within art

. 9, § 3 0 calculations and what, if any, mandated activity is not included.” For these reasons, we deem mandamus to be an appropriate remedy and hereby direct the state through its officers and departments to hereafter comply with the annual reporting requirement s of MCL 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241. [ Taxpayers , 330 Mich App at 319

- 320 (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id . at 333 ( B ORRELLO , P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) .] [ 35 ] The panel later stated that the mandamus relief was to be “prospective only because plaintiffs have waived their claim to compensation for the state’s past practice of counting

35 We note that plaintiffs’ claim in this Court

— that the writ of mandamus is to “prospectively requir[e] state officials, including the Auditor General, to exclude state spending to fund state mandates from the numerator of the § 30 calculation”

— is not the reli ef the panel had granted. Moreover, as discussed in Part VII of this opinion, we hold that the § 29 funding is not to be excluded from the § 30 calculation of total state spending paid to units of local government.30 funding for new or increased mandates for purposes of § 30.” Id . at 320 (opini on by
S HAPIRO , J.) ; id . at 332 ( M ETER , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id . at 333 ( B ORRELLO , P.J., concurring in part and dissenti ng in part)

. This holding is puzzling for many reasons . First, it is unclear why the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs a writ of mandamus regarding the reporting requirement of MCL 21.235(3) when it does not appear that plaintiffs refuted defendants’ assertion that the
governor complied with the reporting required by th at statute . In their answer to the compla int, the state defendants admitted only to not complying with the reporting requirements imposed on DTMB in MCL 21.241. Second, it is unclear why the Court of Appeals vaguely ordered “the state through its officers and departments” to comply with the statutes when those statutes apply to the governor, MCL 21.235, who is not a named defendant in this action, and to DTMB, MCL 21.241. Third, the panel’s explanation that the writ of mandamus was to be “prospective only” because plaintiffs “waived their claim to compensation for the state’s past practice of counting funding for new or incre ased mandates for purposes of § 30” appears to be unrelated to the actual mandamus relief granted

— compliance with the annual reporting requirements of MCL 21.235(3) and MCL
21.241. When the state defendants appealed this ruling, however, they only quarreled with the Court of Appeals opinion insofar as it was unclear whether the mandamus relief granted
extended to defendant Office of the Auditor General. 36 While a writ of mandamus might

36 As a result, our grant order only directed the parties to address this particular facet of the mandamus order. Taxpayers , 505 Mich at 1136.31 be appropriate to compel the Auditor General to perform a statutory duty, see Thompson v
Auditor Gen eral , 261 Mich 624, 656; 247 NW2d 360 (1933), it is unclear what statutory duty or other “clear legal duty” the Auditor General or the Office of the Auditor General has in the reporting requirement s of MCL 21.235 and MCL 21.241. The Court of Appeals
also failed to address whether these duties were ministerial or involved the exercise of
discretion. In light of our disposition regarding Parts III(B) and (C) of the Court of Appeals opinion and b ecause we are unable to discern the nature of the relief requested or granted,

we vacate Part III ( E ) of the Court of Appeals opinion. Although we do not express an opinion on the appropriateness of the remedy, we remand to the Court of Appeals for
clarification. On remand, the panel should specify which defend ant is failing to perform which clear legal duty and should analyze whether granting the extraordinary writ of
mandamus is warranted.
IX. CONCLUSION We hold that Proposal A payments to school districts and § 29 state spending to
fund state

- mandated local services and activities are both properly counted in the calculation of “total state spending to all units of Local G overnment” under § 30 of the
Headlee Amendment . Accordingly, we affirm Part III ( B ) and reverse Part III ( D ) of the Court of Appeals opinion. We also hold that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that
PSA s are “school districts” as the term is used in the Headlee Amendment and reverse that
conclusion reached in Part III(C) of the opinion. We further hold that PSAs themselves

are not political subdivision s of the state for purposes of the Headlee Amendment

.32 However, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals to consider whether PSA funding
should be counted as spending paid to a unit of “Local Govern ment” if the authorizing body of the PSA is a school district, intermediate school district, or community college

. Finally, w e vacate Part III ( E ) of the opinion without prejudice and remand so that the Court of Appeals may clari fy its grant of mandamus re lief or take other action not inconsistent with this opinion. Megan K. Cavanagh Bridget M. McCormack Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement (except as to Part VIII) Elizabeth M. WelchS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
SUPREME COURT

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIGAN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, STEVE DUCHANE, RANDALL BLUM, and SARA KANDEL , Plaintiff s
- Appell ants ,

v No. 160658 STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, and OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL , Defendant s
- A ppell ees
.

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIG AN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVER NMENT, STEVE DUCHANE, RANDA LL BLUM, and SARA KANDEL , Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v No. 160660 STATE OF MICHIGAN, D EPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAG EMENT AND BUDGET, and OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL , Defendants

- Appellants.

V IVIANO , J

. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part )

.2 I concur in the majority’s decision in all respects except as to P art VI regarding funding for Public School Academies (PSAs), colloquially known as charter schools . I dissent because I believe that PSAs, as a category , are political subdivision s of the state under Const 1963, art 9 , § 33

. T herefore, I believe that state spending for PSAs is properly
considered “ spending paid to a ll unit s of Local Government ” for purposes of Const 1963,

art 9 , § 30 of the Headlee Amendment.
I. TEXT OF THE CONSTITU TION This case requires that we decide whether the phrase “Local Government” in § 30 , as defined in § 33, encompasses PSAs. To do so, we must “ determine the text’ s original meaning to the ratifiers, the people, at the time of ratification.” Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secre tary of State , 503 Mich 42, 61; 921 NW2d 247 (2018) ( CPMC ) (quotation marks and citation omitted)

. In other words, we must seek the “common understanding” of the constitutional provisions to ascertain and give effect to

“ the sense of the words used that w ould have been most obvious to those who voted to adopt the constitution. ” Straus v Governor , 459 Mich 526, 533; 592 NW2d 53 (1999). Article 9, § 30 provides , “The proportion of total state spending paid to all units of
Local Government , taken as a group, shall not be reduced below that proportion in effect in fiscal year 1978

- 79.” “Local Government” is defined in A rt icle 9, § 33 as “ any political subdivision of the state, including, but not restricted to, school districts, cities, villages, townships, ch arter townships, counties, charter counties, authorities created by the state, and authorities created by other units of local government.”3 Th e language of § 33 reveals that this section contemplates a broad and inclusive
definition of the term “ L ocal G ove rnment ,” given that it includes “ any ” political
subdivision. (Emphasis added.) “The commonly understood word ‘ any ’ generally casts a wide net and encompasses a wide range of things. ” People v Lively , 470 Mich 248, 253; 680 NW2d 878 (2004). 1 Pertinent d efinitions of the word “any” demonstrate that there is no restriction on the type of political subdivision included . See , e.g., Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (198 4 ) (“ 1 : one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a : one or another taken at random <ask [ any ] man you meet> b : EVERY

— used to indicate one
selected without restriction < [ any ] child would know that > ”). 2 Second, the phrase “including , but not restricted to” contemplates , by its own terms, that there are e ntities that qualify as local governments beyond those that are explicitly listed ; that is, the list of
entities is nonexhaustive. 3

1 See also People v Harris , 495 Mich 120, 132; 845 NW2d 477 (2014) (“[I] t is difficult to imagine how the Legislature could have cast a broader net give n the use of the words ‘any act’

. . . . ” ).

2 See also The Random House Dictionary (1984) ( defining “any , ” in pertinent part , as “every or all”). A court may use dictiona ries from the relevant time period to determine the meaning of a particular term in the Constitution. See CPMC , 503 Mich at 71 n 64. Additionally, “[ b ] ecause ‘[d] ictionaries tend to lag behind linguistic realities,’ ” it is appropriate to consult dictionaries from after 1978 to understand the meaning of the term when the Headlee Amendment was ratified. People v Wood , 506 Mich 114, 13 3 n 5; 954 NW2d 494 (2020) ( V IVIANO , J., dissenting), quoting Scalia & Garner, A Note on the Use of Dictionaries , 16 Green Bag 2d 419, 423 (2013).

3 This definition in § 33 appears broader than that found in the implementing legislation for the Headlee Amendment, MCL 21.231 et seq . MCL 21.233(5) defines “local unit of government” as “a po litical subdivision of this state, including school districts, community college districts, intermediate school districts, cities, villages, townships, counties, and authorities, if the political subdivision has as its primary purpose the providing of loca l governmental services for residents in a geographically limited area of this state and has4 II. CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICAL SUBDIVI SIONS To determine whether a PSA is a local government for purposes of the Headlee Amendment, we must determine whether a PSA constitute s a “political subdivision” as
that term was understood in 1978 . To do so, we look to see if PSA s have the pertinent
characteristics of such entities

. As the majority explains, these characteristics include “ a geographically limited unit of government, formed to exercise political power, and that is
beholden to a local electorate. ” 4 But this list of attributes is not exhaustive or complete ; at the time that the Headlee Amendment was ratified, politic al subdivisions possess ed other
attributes

. Importantly , political subdivision s operate d as a division of the state to exercise

the power to act primarily on behalf of that area.” Section 33 of the Constitution expressly provides that its list of political subdivisions is not exhaustive an d does not contain the same restriction of “political subdivision” to entities that are geographically limited and that act on behalf of the people in that area. To the extent that the definition in MCL 21.233 diverges from that in § 33, the one in MCL 21 .233 must yield. See Durant v State Bd of Ed , 424 Mich 364, 392; 381 NW2d 662 (1985) (“The state may not avoid the clear requirements of [the Headlee Amendment] either by specific statute or by implementation of definitions adverse to the mandate of the p eople.”).

4 The majority’s description is supported not only by Attorney General Kell e y’s opinion in OAG , 1963

- 19 64, No. 4 , 037, p 3, and People v Egleston , 114 Mich App 436, 440; 319 NW2d 563 (1982), but also by case law from other jurisdictions from which the Attorney General and Egleston drew their conclusions. See, e.g., Lydecker v Drainage & Water Comm’rs of Englewood Twp , 41 NJL 154, 157 (1879); Dugas v Beauregard , 155 Conn 573, 578; 236 A2d 87 (1967); Comm ’ r of Int ernal Revenue v Shamberg’ s Estate , 144 F 2d 998, 1004 (CA 2, 1944)

.5 some government al function for the public benefit. 5 They also had a capacity for self

governance. 6 And p olitical subdivisions sometimes wielded the power of taxation. 7 In determining the scope of the term “ political subdivision ” in § 33, it is important

to consider the attributes of the other entities on the list because the definition of political subdivision must at least be broad enough to encompass them. In other words, w e cannot define the general term “political subdivision” in a way that would exclude one or more

5 See Egleston , 114 Mich App at 440 (“[I] ts existence [is] for the purpose of discharging some function of local government

. . . .”); OAG , 1963

- 19 64, No. 4 , 037, at 3 (describing that they are “ ‘ organized for the public advantage ’ ” and that “ ‘ their chief design is the exercise of governmental functions ’ ”) , quoting Lydecker , 41 NJL at 15 7 . This particular attribute

— the exercise of governmental function s for the public benefit

— was recogni zed in many decisions prior to 1978 , including those from other jurisdictions . See Lydecker , 41 NJL at 156

- 157; Shamberg’s Estate , 144 F2d at 1004; Dugas , 155 Conn at 578. See also Fair v Sch Emp loyees Retirement Sys of Ohio , 44 Ohio App 2d 115 , 118

- 119 ; 335 NE2d 868 (1975) (“ The term [political subdivision] may be used in more than one sense, and it may designate a true governmental subdivision such as a county, township, etc., or it may have a broader meaning, denoting any subdivision of the state creat ed for a public purpose although authorized to exercise a portion of the sovereign power of the state only to a limited degree

. Broadly speaking, a political subdivision of a state is a subdivision thereof to which has been delegated certain functions of local government. ”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

6 See Egleston , 114 Mich App at 440 (describing that a political subdivision has “ authority for self

- government through officers selected by it”) , citing Dugas , 155 Conn at 578 ; OAG , 1963

- 19 64, No . 4 , 037, at 3 (describing that the electors of the subdivision possess “ ‘ to some extent

. . . the power of local government ’ ”) , quoting Lydecker , 41 NJL at 157

.
7 See OAG , 1963

- 19 64, No. 4 , 037, at 3 (describing that political subdivisions have “ ‘ the sov ereign power of taxation to meet their own necessities ’ ”) , quoting Lydecker , 41 NJL at 157 ; Dugas , 155 Conn at 578 (holding that an entity was not a political subdivision because , among other things, it had “ no power to levy taxes ”); Shamberg’s Estate , 144 F2d at 1003, 1005 (describing that the political subdivision at issue did not have the power of taxation but noting that “ the lack of taxing power

. . . is only one of the attributes of sovereignty ”)

.6 enumerated examples. E very constitutional provision “ must be interpreted in the light of the document as a whole, and no provision should be construed to nullify or impair
another.” 8 When specific examples follow a general term, as in § 33, this “can serve the function of making doubly sure that the broad (and intended

- to

- be

- broad) general term is taken to include the specifics.” Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts ( St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2012) , p 204

. “ When the genus comes first (‘all bui l dings, assembly houses, courthouses, jails, police stations, and government offices’) it is a stranger that arrives, so to speak, without an introduction saying it is limited; one is invited
to take it at its broadest face value.” Id . at 205. 9 Accordingly , we must frame our

8 Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Court , 469 Mic h 146, 156 ; 665 NW2d 452 (2003 ).

9 Justice Antonin Scalia and Br y an Garner explain that the doctrine of ejusdem generis does not and should not apply when specific examples follow a general term. This doctrine states that “[w]here general words follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or class specifically mentioned

. . . .” Reading Law , p 199. T he editors of the treatise Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction expanded this doctrine in 1973 to state that it also applies when specific words follow general ones. Id . at 204, citing 2A Sands, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (4th ed) , § 47:17 , p 166

. However, Scalia and Garner explain that this expan sion was inappropriate; when specific examples follow a general term, this does not restrict the general , in part , because “there is no commonly used verbal formulation

. . . that makes that [limiting] function clear in the specific

- followed

- by

- general con text. One never encounters a provision that reads ‘all assembly houses, courthouses, jails, police stations, government offices, and, without limitation by reason of the foregoing , all other buildings.’ ” Reading Law , pp 204

- 205. Scalia and Garner’s cons truction of the doctrine is in tension with our current caselaw, which adopted Sutherland ’s construction that ejusdem generis applies when a general term is followed by specific ones. See Belanger v Warren Consol Sch Dist Bd of Ed , 432 Mich 575, 583

- 584; 443 NW2d 372 (1989). For the reasons stated by Scalia and Garner, I believe that our adoption of Sutherland’s construction was in error. However, even if I were to apply a limiting construction under the ejusdem generis doctrine in this context, it would not change my analysis or conclusion. Our interpretation of the general7 understanding o f the term “political subdivision” by refer ring to the list of examples provided. The first enumerated example relevant to my analysis is “school district.” 10 I share some agreement with the majority that PSAs and traditional school districts are not exactly alike. In particular, as the majority describes, school districts are governed by a school board, whose members are directly elected by the voters in a s chool district. MCL 380.11a(5) to (7); MCL 168.642c. However, t he majority downplays the other shared characteristics of school districts that are pertinent here. First, school districts, like PSAs, perform the governmental function of providing free pu blic education. See Const 1963, art 8, § 2. Second, school districts operate in a defined geographic area, see, e.g., MCL 380.626, but may also admit students from the same intermediate school district , see MCL 388.1705, or students residing in a contigu ous intermediate school district, see MCL 388.1705c. Third, though less significant , school districts lack the power to raise operating funds through the imposition of property taxes after the passage of Proposal A. See Const 1963, art 9, § 11.

term (political subdivision) would involve consideration of the characteristics of the specific examples to determine if PSAs are “of the same general kind or class

. . . .” Reading Law , p 199 . As my analysis demonstrates, consideration of these characteristics, as set forth in the enumerated examples, leads to the conclusion that PSAs fall within the term “political subdivision.”

10 I take no issue with the majority’s conclusion that MCL 380.501(1) does little to inform our analysis. In MCL 380.501(1) , the Legislature described that a PSA is a “school district for the purposes of [Proposal A, Const 1963, art 9, § 11].” This is a le gislative declaration that PSAs are school districts only for the purposes of Proposal A, not the Headlee Amendment.8 In this c ontext , it is also revealing that the ratifiers included on the list “ authorities created by the state, and authorities created by other units of local government ” as express examples of political subdivisions. Const 1963, art 9, § 33. An authority “ is a corporation controlled by a state that has delegated governmental power to that authority for the performance of a state function, rather than acting directly through a state agency. ”
4 Rathkopf ’ s The Law of Zoning and Planning (4 th ed , June 2021 update ) , § 76:18

. These types of entities are created to “ perform a special purpose or purposes, or to perform some of the functions of privately

- owned public service corporations. ” 1 McQuillin, Mun icipal Corp orations (3d ed , August 2020 update ), § 2:35

. These authorities have independence to administer their purposes and have a modicum of autonomy with regard to their separate corporate legal status, freedom from normal governmental management controls, and ability to support themselves monetarily. Id . They are generally considered a n “instrumentality of the state .” Id

. Considering authorities that were in existence in 1978 reveal s three things about political subdivisions that should affect our understanding of that term in § 33

. 11 First, the Legislature di d not always define the geographic boundaries of these authorities with precision. Many authorities in existence in 1978 had specific geographic boundaries, such as those of the authorizing municipalities. 12 But that was not always true

— some

11 Because we seek the common understanding of authorities in 1978, I look only to entities that were in existence at that time. See notes 1 2 to 1 5 of this opinion

.
12 See, e.g., MCL 121.2 (water authorities operate within the limits of the authorizing municipalities); MCL 119.2 (metropolitan districts operate within the limits of the authorizing municipalities )

. The Charter Water Authority Act , MCL 121.29 et seq ., was9 autho rities , like garbage, rubbish, and dog

- pound authorities created under MCL 123.301 et seq

. had boundaries that were not well defined

. 13 MCL 123.301(1) allows two or more municipalities to incorporate authorities for these purposes. While the authority may contract with any municipality that is a part of the authority, MCL 123.305(1), it may also
contract with “ a city, village, or townsh ip that is not a part of the authority , ” MCL 123.305(2). In other words, the authority has a ch oice of where to operate

— and it may do so outside the bounds of the authorizing municipalities. Other authorities in existence in
1978 had similar provisions

. See MCL 254.311 (allowing the Mackinac Bridge Authority to construct a “bridge,” which includes all roads, facilities, parks, equipment, etc. connected to the project); 14 MCL 124.406(b) (allowing public transportation authorities to operate in the 10 miles outside of the metropolitan transportation authority “ if there is no similar authority established or operating public transportation facilities within such 10
mile extra

- ter ritorial distance”). 15 Second, while some authorities ha d the power to levy taxes directly, many of these authorities lacked the power of taxation and were instead funded by the authorizing body or another public entity

. 16 For example, the Mackinac Bridge Authority was funded by
enacted by 1957 PA 4, and the Metropolitan District Act , MCL 119.1 et seq ., was enacted by 1929 PA 312.

13 T he j oint g arbage and r ubbish d isposal a ct was enacted by 1947 PA 179.

14 The Mackinac Bridge Authority a ct , MCL 254.311 et seq ., was enacted by 1952 PA 214.

15 The Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act , MCL 124.401 et seq ., was enacted by 1967 PA 204.

16 Examples of authorities with direct taxing power include water authorities, MCL 121.18, and metropolitan districts, M CL 119.3 and MCL 119.4.10 bonds that the authority issued itself and by appropriatio ns from the S tate H ighway
D epartment. MCL 254.317. Metropolitan transportation authorities were prohibited from levying taxes themselves; instead, they were funded by tolls, grants, appropriations from participating counties and political subdivisions, or tax proceeds “ collected by the state or a political subdivision and returned or paid to the authority pursuant to law or contract. ” MCL 124.414(a) to (d) . Similarly, garbage, rubbish, and dog

- pound authorities had “no direct taxing power” but were in stead funded by the participating municipalities. MCL
123.308. Third, and most importantly to the analysis here, the governing bodies of these authorities were almost universally chosen

— not by the electorate directly , but by the participating municipaliti es or state offi cers. The board of commissioners for water
authorities was appointed by the legislative bodies of each participating city. MCL 121.6. The same was true of metropolitan districts. MCL 119.6. Six board members of the Mackinac Bridge A uth ority were appointed by the governor; the last was to be appointed by the director of the D epartment of T ransportation. MCL 254.302(2). Metropolitan transportation authorities are governed by a nine

- member board, all of whom are appointed by the governor . MCL 124.410 (1) (d). The governing boards of other authorities, such as garbage, rubbish, and dog

- pound authorities and building authorities, were to be selected as provided in the articles of incorporation. See MCL 123.302; MCL 123.955.
III. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL ACA DEMIES
The characteristics of school districts and a uthorities outlined above inform the analysis of whether PSAs should be considered “ political subdivision s
. ” Like school11 districts, PSAs provide educational services; these services a re a government al function operated for the public benefit. See Const 1963, art 8, § 2. 17 As the majority recognizes, the performance of these functions unquestionably constitute s the performance of

“ essential public purposes and governmental functions of this state.” MCL 380.501(1). This factor weighs heavily in favor of a finding that PSA s are political subdivision s
. Certain PSAs also operate in a limited geographic area in a similar manner to ce rtain
authorities and school districts

. If a PSA is authorized by the board of a school district, intermediate school district, or community college, the PSA “shall not operate” outside the authorizing body’s boun daries. MCL 380.502 (2) (a) to (c). E nroll ment in the PSA “shall be open to all pupils who reside within the geographic boundaries of that authorizing body , ” though it “may be open to all individuals who reside in this state

. . . .” MCL 380.504(3). 18 If the authorizing body is a state public uni versity, enrollment “shall be open to all pupils who reside in this state who meet the [PSA’s] admission policy. ” Id

. But, as defendants correctly assert on appeal, enrollment will be practically limited to the PSA’s immediate geographic area. A student living in Marquette likely will not enroll in a PSA
in Detroit, even if he or she could do so.

17 See also L M v Michigan , 307 Mich App 685, 697; 862 NW 2d 246 (2014) (noting that the Constitution requires the Legislature to “ provide for and finance a system of free public schools ” but “ leaves the actual intricacies of the deli very of specific educational services ” to schools themselves).

18 “Shall” in this context indicates a mandatory directive, whereas “may” indicates a permissive one. See Manuel v Gill , 481 Mich 637, 647; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (“ In general, our courts have said that the term ‘may’ is ‘ permissive, ’ as opposed to the term ‘ shall, ’ which is considered ‘mandatory.’ ”) (citations omitted).12 In this respect, PSAs resemble other authorities that do not have strict geographic
boundar ies but will be confined by necessity to a certain area of operatio ns
. As discussed above, garbage, rubbish, and dog

- pound authorities can contract with any municipality, whether the municipality is an authorizing body or not. The Mackinac Bridge Authority has the authority to operate anywhere that is connected to the Mackinac Bridge. But the se authorit ies will be practically confined to the specific area in which they operate. So , too , are PSAs geographically confined, even if they may be similarly allowed, in some circumstances, to operate in any part of the state o r accept students residing anywhere in
the state. This practical limitation is similar to Michigan’s school

- of

- choice program in
which public schools may choose to accept students residing within the same intermediate
school district , MCL 388.1705(2), or residing in a contiguous intermediate school district , MCL 388.1705c. School districts therefore may accept students from outside their own
boundaries , but enrollment is still limited to a particular geographic area. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion , this factor weighs in favor of a finding that PSAs are political
subdivisions. Next, while PSAs lack the power of taxation

— “ [a] public school academy may not levy ad valorem property taxes or another tax for any purpose , ” MCL 380.503(9)

— this
factor is not dispositive. The ability to tax “ is only one of the a t tributes of sovereignty .” Shamberg’s Estate , 144 F2d at 1005. Further, as noted above, authorities often lack this power, yet Const 1963, art 9, § 33 still describes them as examples of p olitical subdivisions

. And, as also noted above, school districts also now lack the power to raise operating funds through the imposition of property taxes

. Therefore, it is clear that the ability to tax is not a dispositive attribute of a political subdivision.13 Finally, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, PSAs have sufficient ability to self

govern and have electorate control

. The majority correctly notes that the “governing body of a PSA is not elected by voters” and , thus, that the PSA “i s under the imme diate control of its authorizing body .” 19 T he majority makes much of the supposed lack of electorate

contro l or self

- governance , in part because of the difference between the boards of PSAs
and the boards of traditional school districts, which are directly elected and, therefore, have a greater capacity for self

- governance. 20 However, the majority fails to acknowledge that governing bodies of authorities are also not directly elected and, thus, have a similarly
limited ability to self

- govern. In Council of Organizations & Others for Ed A bout Parochia i d, Inc v Governor , 455 Mich 557 , 571 ; 566 NW2d 208 (1997), we addressed whether PSAs were “public schools” for the purpose of Const 1963 art 8, § 2, which requires the Legislature to “maintain and sup port a system of free public elementary and secondary schools

. . . .” The plaintiffs there argued , among other things, that PSAs were not public schools because a PSA “ is run by a private board of directors and because the authorizing body has no means
f

or selecting members of the board

. . . .” Id . at 575. We disagreed , holding that t hrough

19 A PSA is governed by a board of directors, MCL 380.502(1), but the authorizing body adopts a resolution to establish “ the method of selection, length of term, and number of members of the board of directors , ” MCL 380.503(5). The authorizing body also oversees the PSA, and that oversight must be “ sufficient to ensure that the board of directors is in compliance with the terms of the contract and with applicable law. ” MCL 380.507(1)(d).

20 The majority also notes that P SAs are nonprofit corporations, b ut this , too , misses that some authorities are created as nonprofit entities . See MCL 390.951 (“There is created a nonprofit au thority as an agency in the department of education, to be known as the

‘ Michigan higher education assistance authority ’

. ” ).14 MCL 380.503(3), 21 “ the Legislature has mandated the board of director ’ s selection process” and could “change this process at any time.” Id . Further, we explained t hat while the board of a PSA is not chosen by the electorate or the Legislature, “ the board of the authorizing bodies is publicly elected or appointed by public bodies. ” Id . Therefore, “ the public maintains control of the schools through the authorizing bodies. ” Id . at 576. As we explained in Council of Org anization s , the public still maintains control over
PSAs through the public authorizing bodies. This is analogous to how authorities work. As discussed above, authorities in existence in 1978 were not controlled by the electorate but rather by the participating municipalities or the governor. Those public bodies and
officials are directly elected, giving the public direct control over the authorities only through an intermediary

. Fur ther, some of these authorities are governed by articles of incorporation that are expressly adopted by the legislative body of municipalities. See MCL 123.301; MCL 123.955. In these latter examples especially, the municipalities have the ability to cont rol the self

- governance of the authority through the adopt ion or rejection
of the articles of incorporation. 22 Because they have a similar governance structure, PSAs have a sufficient ability to self

- govern to qualify as a political subdivision.
The factor s of electoral control and self

- governance weigh in favor of finding that PSAs are political subdivisions

. The electorate still has control over PSAs through the

21 Th is provision is now codified in MCL 380.503(5). See n ote 1 9 of this opinion

.
22 Attorney General Kell e y deemed this indirect control to be sufficient when he stated that

“ ‘ to the electors residing within each [political subdivision] is, to some extent, committed the power of local government, to be wielded either mediately or immediately

. . . . ’ ” OAG , 1963

- 19 64, No. 4 , 037, at 3 , quoting Lydecker , 41 NJL at 157 (emphasis added). If the electors have mediate, i.e. , indirect, control of an entity, as is true with PSAs, that indirect control is enough to support a finding that the entity is a political subdivision.15 authorizing body, and PSAs still possess the ability to run their own affairs, even if the

au thorizing body oversees those affairs. A political subdivision does not need to have
either direct electoral control or total self

- governance for purposes of the Headlee
Amendment. Rather, in light of the authorities in existence at the time of ratificat ion, so long as there is some public , electoral control of a political subdivision through an authorizing body, municipality, or state officer, that is enough to weigh in favor of finding that an entity is a political subdivision. If authorities are expre ssly considered political subdivisions for purpose s of § 33 and the electorate has the same level of control over both these authorities and PSAs, we should treat PSAs in the same manner as authorities. Therefore, under a proper interpretation of § 33 , PSAs qualify as political
subdivisions.
IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from Part V I of the majority opinion and
would hold that state spending for PSAs qualifies as part of the “total state spending paid
to all units of Local Gov ernment ” under § 30

. Accordingly , I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on that issue

.

David F. Viviano Brian K. ZahraS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
SUPREME COURT

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIG AN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVER NMENT, STEVE DUCHANE, RANDA LL BLUM, and SARA KANDEL , Plaintiff s
- Appell ants ,

v No. 160658
STATE OF MICHIGAN , DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAG EMENT AND BUDGET, and OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL
Defendant s
- Appell ees
.

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIG AN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVER NMENT, STEVE DUCHANE, RANDA LL BLUM, and SARA KANDEL , Plaintiff s
- Appell ees ,

v No. 160660 STATE OF MICHIGAN, D EPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAG EMENT AND BUDGET, and OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL , Defendant s
- Appell ants

.

C LEMENT , J

. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).2 I concur in full with the Court’s resolution of the substantive Headlee Amendment claims. I dissent only as to the Court’s disposition of the s tate’s challenge to the writ of mandamus issued by the Court of Appeals (acting as a trial court) in D ocket N o. 160660.
While I concur with the Court’s decision to vacate the entire mandamus portion of the Court of Appeals opinion , 1 because this aspect of plaintiffs’ case was inadequately ple aded
I would not direct that C ourt to continue struggling on remand with an issue that is not adequately framed. Any debate about whether a case has been adequately ple a d ed obviously should begin with a discussion of the elements of the action. “To support mandamus, plaintiffs must have a clear legal right to performance of the specific duty sought to be compelled; defendants must have the clear legal duty to perform such act; and it must be a ministerial

act

. . . .” Toan v McGinn , 271 Mich 28, 34; 260 NW 108 (1935). A “ministerial act” is one “where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment.” Id

. (quotation
marks and cit ation omitted). While the majority of the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction is appellate, it has some limited original jurisdiction, including over actions challenging compliance with the Headlee Amendment, see Const 1963, art 9, § 32, so this action was init iated when plaintiffs fil ed a complaint in that Court. The named defendants were the s tate itself; the

1 Although the lead opinion in the Court of Appeals was only signed by Judge S HAPIRO , the partial dissents from Judges M ETER and B ORRELLO confined their disagreement with Judge S HAPIRO to other issues and otherwise concurred with his analysis of the mandamu s component of this case. As a result, I refer to Judge S HAPIRO ’s opinion as the opinion of the Court when analyzing this mandamus question.3 Department of Technology, Management and Budget; and the Office of the Auditor General. As the majority notes, “ T here are three specific counts of plai ntiffs’ complaint at issue in this appeal,” and there was also a fourth count that was disposed of ( relating to highway funding ) before the case reached us. All four counts were substantive Headlee claims; no t o ne of them was a count seeking a writ of man damus. As the majority notes,
the only mention of mandamus in the complaint is a single line in the prayer for relief asking for “[m]andamus relief directing the State of Michigan to fully comply with the reporting requirements of MCL 21.235 and 21.241 [

. ] ” The complaint offers no allegations about what legal duties those statutes impose on any public officers, and indeed, arguably no actual public officers are named as defendants, inasmuch as corporate entities (the s tate,

a d epartment, and an o ffice) are named rather than actual officers. The majority notes that plaintiffs’ briefing in the Court of Appeals “did not provide any argument or explanation about this requested relief

. . . .” In its opinion resolving the case, the Court of Appeals granted mand amus relief to plaintiffs. The opinion, however, is as vague as plaintiffs’ complaint. The Court of Appeals noted that MCL 21.241 “establishes a legislatively mandated duty that the state, through its officers and departments, collect, report, and place on the public record certain information regarding the state’s compliance with the Headlee Amendment,” but “[t]he state has breached this duty.” Taxpayers for Mich Constitutional Gov’t v Michigan (On Reconsideration) , 330 Mich App 295, 319; 948 NW2d 91 (2 019) (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.)

. After concluding that the requested actions were ministerial, the Court “deem[ed] mandamus to be an appropriate remedy and hereby direct[ed] the state through its officers and departments to hereafter comply with the annual reporting requirements of MCL4 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241.” Id . at 320 (opinion by S HAPIRO , J.)

. Its opinion did not describe which officers need to perform which duties. The s tate sought leave to appeal in
this Court , asking for relief specific to the Auditor General. The s tate phrased the question presented here as:
The Auditor General reviews and determines how state funds are spent and examines whether the State properly accounts for spending to units of local gov ernment. The Court of Appeals’ opinion did not expressly address the issue of mandamus against the Auditor General but may imply that its review and determination under existing laws were subject to mandamus relief. Would mandamus relief as to the Audito r General, based on the claims raised for the first time in this case, i.e., despite no prior court decision that its processes were contrary to law, represent clear error? In my view, the s tate’s conditional phrasing in its application for leave to appeal should have been a red flag that what it was asking for was an advisory opinion. We were effectively asked: if a court tried to hold the Auditor General in contempt, would that be legally viable (and if so, under what circumstances)? Baked into that are questions about the scope of the Auditor General’s responsibilities under the pertinent statutes as well as how the Auditor General properly would respond to the substantive Headlee ruling. Judicial review of these questions is frustrated by the fact tha t plaintiffs have failed to allege
any specific legal duty they want performed, nor have they “connected the dots” between any such duty and a specific officer who must perform it. The confusion is underlined by the fact that plaintiffs’ brief in D ocket N o. 160660 says that “[t]he only mandamus relief at issue on this appeal is the Court of Appeals grant of mandamus prospectively requiring state officials, including the Auditor General, to exclude state spending to fund state
mandates from the numerator of the [Const 1963, art 9, § 30] calculation.” This appears5 nowhere in the Court of Appeals opinion. The mandamus relief the Court of Appeals
directed relates to reporting requirements under MCL 21.235 and MCL 21.241. We are faced, it seems to me, with a m ess . On the one hand, it appears that the

s tate’s appeal essentially asks us for advice, which we are not in the business of providing.
But the reason the s tate wants advice is because the Court of Appeals judgment against the

s tate is extremely vague

— as vague as plaintiffs’ complaint. Further contributing to the confusion is that plaintiffs themselves do not appear to accurately represent what it is that
the Court of A ppeals ordered; their characterization of what is “at issue on this appeal”
appears un grounded in the text of the Court of Appeals opinion we are asked to review. Our pleading rules require that a complaint contain “[a] statement of the facts

. . . on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action , with the specific allegations ne cessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims the adverse party is called
on to defend [

. ] ” MCR 2.111(B)(1) (emphasis added). It seems clear to me that this complaint is inadequate. It has long been established that mandamus is an action at law,

see Woodworth v Old Second Nat’l Bank , 144 Mich 338, 338

- 339; 107 NW 905 (1906), and as with any other action at law, the burden is on the plaintiff to plead facts establishing
the elements of the cause of action. That simply is not the case here

— plaintiffs do not

even list mandamus as one of the counts in their complaint. Perhaps as a result, plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege any “specific duty” to be performed, nor does it identify any
“defendants [who] have the clear legal duty to perform such act [

. ] ” Toan , 271 Mich at 34. In response to this state of affairs, the majority “vacate[s] the grant of mandamus and remand[s] to the Court of Appeals to clarify its reasoning or reconsider its decision as it deems appropriate.” While I certainly prefer this disposition of the case as opposed to6 affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I would simply vacate this aspect of the judgment as having been erroneously rendered and would not direct the Cour t of Appeals to continue shadowboxing with this poorly ple a d ed aspect of the case. This is all the more
so when we consider the arm’s length manner in which business is conducted in the Court of Appeals; it has no convenient mechanisms for a panel of its judges to take the steps a trial court might take to straighten out confusion of this sort, like hold ing a status conference with the litigants. See MCR 2.112, 480 Mich clviii, clx

- clxii ( Y OUNG , J., concurring) (discussing the “practical difficulties asso ciated with the Court of Appeals [’] exercise of original jurisdiction ” given that “[n]one of the tools available to our circuit courts for processing trials are available” to it and its “primary function is revisionary,” leaving it “ill

- equipped to evaluat e the claims and defenses in a complex and fact

- intensive original action without the assistance of the parties in developing the factual bases for their claims and defenses”). I believe that the best resolution of the mandamus issue would simply be to ho ld that plaintiffs’ complaint was inadequate and vacate P art III ( E ) of the Court of Appeals opinion without directing the Court to work further on the issue on
remand.

Elizabeth T. Clement