Opinion ID: 2217214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alterations Per Plaintiff

Text: In the complaint filed in Ingham Circuit Court, plaintiff Zolton Ferency directed the court's attention to eight provisions of the 1963 Constitution which would be altered or abrogated by passage of the Tisch Amendment. The trial court agreed that art 4, ง 34 was so impacted, but did not discuss the remaining provisions. I find plaintiff's contentions as to this section, as well as to art 4, ง 27, well-taken. However, I am in agreement with the trial court's implicit rejection of the following six additional sections: Art 8, ง 5. University controlling boards. Art 6, งง 1, 4, 5. Judicial power. Art 7, ง 2. County charters. Art 7, ง 21. Cities and villages. Article 4, ง 27 Article 4, ง 27 provides as follows: No act shall take effect until the expiration of 90 days from the end of the session at which it was passed, but the legislature may give immediate effect to acts by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house. Article 9, งง 2 and 2(a), as proposed by the Tisch Amendment, have already been quoted and discussed. The sections provide that the Legislature shall not impose any new or increased tax without the approval of a 60% majority in a referendum. It is obvious that such tax legislation, requiring approval of 60% of the voters in a referendum, will not have immediate effect or take effect upon the expiration of 90 days as now provided in art 4, ง 27. As a consequence, with respect to tax legislation imposing a new or increased tax, existing art 4, ง 27 would be non-operable if the Tisch Amendment passed. Therefore I find that the proposed Tisch provisions art 9, งง 2 and 2(a) would alter or abrogate art 4, ง 27. Other Sections Plaintiff's rather cursory explanation of the alteration or abrogation of these sections contains a major analytical fault. In each instance, the potential alteration or abrogation is alleged because of the novel and extensive definition of tax of the proposed art 9, ง 33(a): `Tax' means any money collected by the state or any unit of local government to pay for any service or product performed or produced by the state or any unit of local government and shall be interpreted and construed as including any fee, levy, user charge, special assessment, license, permit, weight or volume tax or any imposition of any nature whatsoever to include appropriation to meet deficiencies in state funds. `New tax' means any tax not devised, specified, indentified [sic] or titled and which is not in effect when this amendment is adopted. Facially, this broad definition would seem to open a veritable Pandora's box of troubles and to have implications for the general supervisory power of the judiciary and the controlling boards of the state universities, as well as the power to levy additional taxes granted to county charter commissions, cities, and villages. However, the proposed amendment only requires electoral affirmance of new or increased taxes enacted by the Legislature. Proposed art 9, ง 2 states:    The legislature shall not impose any new tax nor shall there be any increase in the rate of or any broadening of the base of any tax which was in effect during the calendar year 1978, until such proposed tax or increased tax is first approved by affirmation of the electors voting on the question at the next general election following the passage of the legislation proposing such tax or increased tax. (Emphasis added.) By the terms of the proposed amendment, affirmation is necessitated only for new or increased taxes which are enacted by the Legislature. It is therefore erroneous to argue that provisions of the Constitution which โ owing to the broadened definition of tax โ potentially involve imposition of so-defined new or increased taxes by other bodies are subject to electoral approval. It would strain logic as well as the electoral system to find that, merely because the authority of municipal corporations to tax under the new definition was originally derived from the Legislature, new or increased old taxes are void unless approved by 60% affirmation of the electors. As a consequence of this analysis, I would hold that the proposed Tisch Amendment does not alter or abrogate art 8, ง 5, art 6, งง 1, 4, 5, or art 7, ง 21.