Opinion ID: 849204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Constitutional Meaning of Acts Making Appropriations For State Institutions

Text: In Const. 1963, art. 2,  9, the people reserved the power of referendum. They limited it, saying it does not extend to acts making appropriations for state institutions.... The question in the present case is whether a referendum of Act 381 is possible, because the act makes appropriations for state institutions. When construing provisions of our constitution, this Court uses the rule of common understanding. See American Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Hamtramck, 461 Mich. 352, 362, 604 N.W.2d 330 (2000); Federated Publication, Inc. v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 460 Mich. 75, 84, 594 N.W.2d 491 (1999). The rule requires ascertain[ing] as best the Court may the general understanding and therefore the uppermost or dominant purpose of the people when they approved the provision or provisions.... Michigan Farm Bureau v. Secretary of State, 379 Mich. 387, 390-391, 151 N.W.2d 797 (1967); Traverse City Sch. Dist. v. Attorney Gen., 384 Mich. 390, 405-406, 185 N.W.2d 9 (1971). We start by examining the provision's plain meaning as understood by its ratifiers at the time of its adoption. See American Axle & Mfg, Inc., supra at 362, 604 N.W.2d 330. Article 2,  9 provides: The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and to enact and reject laws, called the initiative, and the power to approve or reject laws enacted by the legislature, called the referendum. The power of initiative extends only to laws which the legislature may enact under this constitution. The power of referendum does not extend to acts making appropriations for state institutions or to meet deficiencies in state funds and must be invoked in the manner prescribed by law within 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the law was enacted. To invoke the initiative or referendum, petitions signed by a number of registered electors, not less than eight percent for initiative and five percent for referendum of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected shall be required. In deciding this case, the majority makes much of the fact that Act 381 allocates $1,000,000 to the department of state police.... Maj. op. at 298. It concludes that the $1,000,000 is an appropriation and that the Department of State Police is a state institution. See maj. op. at 298. Thus, it reasons, the power of referendum does not extend to Act 381. I disagree. The majority's error, in my view, arises in part because it fails to examine carefully the meaning of the phrase acts making appropriations for state institutions. In particular, it ignores the use of the word for in that phrase. In essence, it interprets art. 2,  9 to exempt from referendum any act that makes an appropriation to a state institution. This interpretation not only lacks support from the plain language of the article, it fails to appreciate the critical difference between the meanings of to [1] and for. I would interpret art. 2,  9 to give effect to the words contained in it. The provision indicates that an act making an appropriation is exempt from referendum only if the appropriation is made for state institutions. The dictionary definition of for, in pertinent part, is suiting the purposes or needs of, with the object or purpose of. [2] Purpose is defined as the reason for which something exists. [3] Thus, a reasonable interpretation of art. 2,  9 is that legislation that contains an appropriation aimed at satisfying the purpose or reason for which a state institution exists is referendum-proof. Unless the appropriation is intended to support the core function of a state institution, it does not prevent the people from voting on the legislation in referendum. I would adopt this as the most reasonable interpretation of art. 2, 9. [4] Applying it to this case, I would conclude that Act 381 does not make an appropriation for a state institution. Of the $1,000,000 that it allocates to the Department of State Police not a penny serves the central function for which the department exists. Instead, the appropriation implements the specific substantive provisions of the act. [5] None of the items funded relates to a core function of the state police department. [6] Thus, giving the words of art. 2,  9 and of Act 381 their plain meaning, the Act does not make appropriations for state institutions within the meaning of the constitution. [7] My interpretation is consistent with this Court's mandate that the right of referendum should be liberally construed. See, e.g., Kuhn v. Dep't of Treasury, 384 Mich. 378, 385, 183 N.W.2d 796 (1971). Furthermore,424 it prevents the Legislature from easily circumventing the people's constitutional referendum power. With that end in mind, I agree with the views expressed by the Arizona Supreme Court in Warner v. Secretary of State, 39 Ariz. 203, 4 P.2d 1000 (1931) [8] To hold that an act may not be referred because incidentally it provides the funds to accomplish the ends it seeks would have the effect of practically nullifying the referendum provision of the Constitution, because many of the measures passed carry appropriations of this character, and it would be an easy matter to include such a provision in others and bring about the same result.