Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
TOWNSHIP OF CASCO, TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, PATRICIA ISELER, and JAMES P. HOLK, Plaintiffs/Counter-
Defendants-Appellants,
v SECRETARY OF STATE, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF ELECTIONS, and CITY OF RICHMOND, and WALTER K. WINKLE and PATRICIA A. WINKLE, Intervening Defendants/
Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellees.


Chief Justice:

Justices:

Clifford W. Taylor

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

FILED JUNE 14, 2005

No. 126120

FILLMORE TOWNSHIP, SHIRLEY GREVING, ANDREA STAM, LARRY SYBESMA, JODY TENBRINK, and JAMES RIETVELD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SECRETARY OF STATE and BUREAU OF ELECTIONS DIRECTOR, and No. 126369

CITY OF HOLLAND, Intervenor-Appellee. _______________________________

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH CAVANAGH, J. These consolidated appeals present two issues. First,

we must address whether a single detachment petition and a single vote on that petition, pursuant to the terms of the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1 et seq., may encompass

territory to be detached from one city and added to more than one township.1 Second, if a single detachment petition

and a single vote may encompass territory to be added to more than one township, we must determine whether a writ of mandamus compels the Secretary of State to issue a notice directing an election on the change of boundaries sought by plaintiffs in each case. Because we conclude that the Home

Rule City Act does not allow a single detachment petition and a single vote on detachment for adding territory to multiple townships, mandamus is not proper in these cases. Accordingly, affirmed. the decisions of the Court of Appeals are

While the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1 et seq., addresses various processes, the issue before this Court pertains solely to the process of detachment.

1

2


I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Casco Twp v Secretary of State Plaintiffs in this case are two adjacent townships-- Casco Township and Columbus Township--and residents of those townships who seek to detach territory from defendant city of Richmond. that The was territory previously sought to be to detached the city is of

territory Richmond.

annexed

Plaintiffs seek to present the ballot issue covering both townships in a single petition. This would result in

a single vote about whether to detach territory from the city of Richmond and add the territory to Casco Township and Columbus Township. The residents of one township would

be voting on the return of property to their township, as well as the return of property to a township in which they do not reside. The Secretary of State refused to approve

an election on plaintiffs' petition because an election on the petition would allow residents of one township to vote on, and possibly determine, a change in the boundaries of another township in which they do not reside. Plaintiffs declaratory filed a complaint The circuit for mandamus and

relief.

court

dismissed

plaintiffs' complaint for mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to act because it was not clear that a single

3


petition seeking detachment from a city and addition of the territory to two townships was permitted by the Home Rule City Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Casco Twp v Secretary of State, 261 We granted plaintiffs'

the circuit court.

Mich App 386; 682 NW2d 546 (2004).

application for leave to appeal and ordered that the case be argued and submitted with Fillmore Twp v Secretary of State, 471 Mich 890 (2004). Fillmore Twp v Secretary of State Plaintiffs are Fillmore Township and electors from

four townships--Fillmore Township, Holland Charter Township, Park Township, who and and to the a Laketown detach Township-and territory to from the the city city of of

Holland Holland

want add

territory

the

four

townships. with the

Plaintiffs

filed

joint

detachment

petition

Secretary of State, asking that the petition be certified and that a single election be held regarding the territory that was proposed to be detached from the city of Holland. The Secretary of State refused to certify the petition

because the petition involved an effort to detach territory for addition to more than one township. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals, and the complaint was held in abeyance pending the decision in the Casco Twp case. Unpublished order,

4


entered

May

19,

2003

(Docket

No.

245640).

Plaintiffs'

complaint was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeals on the basis of the Casco Twp decision. entered May 6, 2004 (Docket for No. Unpublished order, We and granted ordered

245640). to appeal

plaintiffs'

application

leave

that the case be argued and submitted with the Casco Twp case. 471 Mich 890 (2004).2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The proper interpretation of a statutory provision is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. v Gen Motors A Corp, 461 Mich 483, 489-490; 607 a Lincoln NW2d writ 73 of

(2000).

trial

court's

decision

regarding

mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

In re MCI

Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 443; 596 NW2d 164 (1999). III. ANALYSIS These cases involve The is to an issue goal to the of of statutory statutory of the

interpretation. interpretation Legislature.

primary give effect

intent

Id. at 411.

The first step is to review the

Justice Young states that the majority "fails to convey adequately the true character of the boundary disputes at issue." Post at 4. Yet the relevant facts are conveyed, and it is of no import if the history of these cases was contentious or of a calculated nature. The statutory analysis is the same whether the parties were friends, foes, or something in between.

2

5


language of the statute.

If the statutory language is

unambiguous, the Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning expressed in the statute and judicial

construction is not permissible. The Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1 et seq., addresses four processes--incorporation, consolidation, annexation,

and detachment.3 to the process

The issue before this Court pertains only of detachment. Detachment means that

territory is taken from an existing city and added to an existing township. Section provides that by 6 a of the Home Rule be City Act, by MCL 117.6,

detachment petition

initiated

"proceedings by qualified

originating

therefor

signed

electors who are freeholders residing within the cities, villages, or townships to be affected thereby . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Notably, MCL 117.8 and MCL 117.11

delineate the procedure for submitting a petition for a change of boundaries. MCL 117.8(1) provides in relevant

part that "the board shall, by resolution, provide that the question of making the proposed incorporation,

consolidation, or change of boundaries be submitted to the qualified electors of the district to be affected at the Recent amendments to the act do not affect the issue in this case.
3

6


next general election or at a special election before the next general election." 117.11(2) provides that (Emphasis added.) "the question or change of of Likewise, MCL making the

incorporation,

consolidation,

boundaries

petitioned for shall be submitted to the electors of the district to be affected." (Emphasis added.) Michigan

election law defines a qualified elector as "any person who possesses the qualifications of an elector as prescribed in section 1 of article 2 of the state constitution and who has resided in the city or township 30 days."4 Because Columbus Casco Township they are voters not do not MCL 168.10. reside in of

Township,

"qualified

electors"

Columbus Township who can sign a petition and vote on the detachment of territory from the city of Richmond for

addition of the territory to Columbus Township.

Likewise,

because Columbus Township voters do not reside in Casco

4

Const 1963, art 2,

Download FILLMORE TWP V SECRETARY OF STATE.pdf

Michigan Law