By Roberta M. Gubbins
Legal News
Editors note: Following the Court's decision on the 24th, the Board of State Canvassers denied certification of the ballot proposal. That decision was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court asking the Courts to order that the proposal be certified and placed on the ballot. As of this writing the appeals are scheduled for oral argument on August 29th.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on August 24th that Michigan's residents should get to vote on a ballot proposal allowing eight more casinos throughout the state. That decision unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals ruling, which had ordered the Secretary of State to "disallow the proposal from the ballot."
The case was brought to the appeals court by the Protect MI Constitution (PMC) asking the court to order the Secretary of State (SOS) to reject a ballot question filed by the Citizens for More Michigan Jobs (CFMMJ).
CFMMJ collected more than 500,000 petition signatures for a constitutional amendment proposal amending the Michigan Constitution to allow eight more casinos located at specific sites in Detroit, Grand Rapids, Romulus, Pontiac, DeWitt Township north of Lansing, Birch Run, Clam Lake Township near Cadillac and Clinton Township near Mount Clemens.
While adding more casinos and arguably more jobs, the Court of Appeals noted that the proposal would also suspend or invalidate portions of the Gaming Act.
PMC, which represents existing casinos, was formed to oppose the CFMMJ proposal and challenge its eligibility for the ballot. PMC claimed that the proposal:
* Would amend the Gaming Act without following Constitutional procedures
* Advances more than one purpose, which can not be expressed in 100 word limitation of the ballot
The court of appeals said that, for the first time, it was "asked to examine the process that the constitution requires for placing before the voters a proposed constitutional amendment that would alter specific provisions of a voter-initiated law." The court stated that because the petition didn't republish the portions of the Michigan Gaming Control Act that it sought to change and failed to comply with the prerequisites of Article 4, section 25 of the Constitution, the Secretary of State had a clear legal duty to reject the petition.
The Supreme Court said the appeals court incorrectly used the article in the constitution that applies to amendments of laws. Because, the court stated, "the ballot proposal seeks voter approval of a constitutional amendment," article 12, section 2 (Amendment by Petition and vote of electors) should have been used. The court ordered the Secretary of State, the Board of State Canvassers and the Director of Elections to proceed with consideration of the proposal for placement on the ballot.
Justice Stephen J. Markman accepted the majority decision, however, he also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the ballot proposal would significantly revise the Gaming Control Act and "there is nothing in the defendant's petition that identifies it to voters as a proposal to amend the Gaming Act."
He concluded saying "If there is virtue in today's decision, it is in providing clarity" to the process voters can use to initiate constitutional amendments. "The process of amending the Constitution by initiative has been made simpler and more straightforward."
Published: Thu, Aug 30, 2012
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
