Court Opinion

ID: 9517414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:16:20.414778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:31.176492
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the per curiam opinion in this case. I agree with the opinion of Judge Holbrook of the Court of Appeals in which he was joined by Judge Fitzgerald.
Proposal “C” is an addition to art 8, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963. It does not alter or abrogate the original provision of that section. Having once denied application for leave to appeal, this Court should not have reopened the Carman case.
*460The Carman case was litigated by appropriate parties to a final judgment which this Court declined to review. This brought an end to the issues raised in that case. The General Court Rules of 1963 provide:
“If application for leave to appeal is denied after decision by the Court of Appeals, the decision of the Court of Appeals shall become the final adjudication and shall be enforced in accordance with its terms.” GCR 1963, 852.2(4)(d).
I agree that had there been error in the submission of “Proposal C” to the people, absent a fatal defect in the petitions, the “election-cures-error” doctrine would be applicable and a vote of the people would be decisive on the question of the adoption of the amendment.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.