On April 2, the Michigan State Appeals Court ordered the Secretary of State to check the signatures on a statewide initiative, even though the petition had the wrong election date. The court said there is no statutory requirement that initiative petitions have the election date, so the petition error could not be used to disqualify it. The initiative proposes that fracking be banned. Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan v Secretary of state, 350161. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20200402_C350161_26_350161.OPN.PDF
MI COA OP
Hello!
I’m the campaign director for the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan. I have an email going out to Richard Winger on this. The Court did not put the initiative on the ballot. It ruled that the date on the front does not control when the actual election is, that the rejection of our signatures at the door was an “unlawful” act by the Secretary of State/Director of Elections, and that to treat the filing as filed when we tendered them on November 5, 2018 and to do otherwise would “punish the petition sponsor and the electorate.”
The Court ordered the petitions in the door of the Secretary of State, who is required by law to pass them on to the Board of State Canvassers. Then the process of canvassing, determining if the number of signatures submitted were sufficient, must begin. Not yet decided by any court is the issue of the statute restricting signature-gathering to 180 days. This is the law we’ve been trying to challenge since 2016 and we keep getting blocked. This decision is paving the way to that challenge. After it is determined we have enough signatures and the 180-day law is unconstituitonal, the Legislature in Michigan has 40 days to either enact or reject or not enact the proposal as is, with no changes. If they fail to enact the proposal, only then it would go to the ballot for a vote of the people, and it would go on the ballot at “the next general election” after the legislature’s action.
How FATAL / USELESS is the entire CURRENT process ??? — due to the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander HACKS in the Mich legislature.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL —
—- with MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, worse primary math – if no incumbent hack — circa 5-15 pct
The legis totally subverts referendums by adding a mini $$$ approp in all *controversial* laws.
See last sentence esp.
Same ROT in ALL init/refer States ???
—–
1963 MICH CONST Art. II, Sec. 9. [spacing added ]
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.
No law as to which the power of referendum properly has been invoked shall be effective thereafter unless approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the next general election.
Any law proposed by initiative petition shall be either enacted or rejected by the legislature without change or amendment within 40 session days from the time such petition is received by the legislature.
If any law proposed by such petition shall be enacted by the legislature it shall be subject to referendum, as hereinafter provided.
If the law so proposed is not enacted by the legislature within the 40 days, the state officer authorized by law shall submit such proposed law to the people for approval or rejection at the next general election.
The legislature may reject any measure so proposed by initiative petition and propose a different measure upon the same subject by a yea and nay vote upon separate roll calls, and in such event both measures shall be submitted by such state officer to the electors for approval or rejection at the next general election.
Any law submitted to the people by either initiative or referendum petition and approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon at any election shall take effect 10 days after the date of the official declaration of the vote.
No law initiated or adopted by the people shall be subject to the veto power of the governor, and no law adopted by the people at the polls under the initiative provisions of this section shall be amended or repealed, except by a vote of the electors unless otherwise provided in the initiative measure or by three-fourths of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature.
Laws approved by the people under the referendum provision of this section may be amended by the legislature at any subsequent session thereof.
If two or more measures approved by the electors at the same election conflict, that receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.
The legislature shall implement the provisions of this section.
In reply to Demo Rep–
This language is in the constitution, as you quoted. It isn’t the fault of the current legislature that the appropriations string was attached to referendum.
But you’re right the entire process has been truly ruined by the Legislature through multiple attempts. The Attorney General declared the 15% rule (put into law during the lame duck time in 2018) unconstitutional, so that will not be in play for the time being.
You mention “the last sentence esp.”
That sentence in the constitution has been ruled in both the Attorney General’s opinion and in Michigan Supreme Court cases to mean that this provision of the Constitution is “self-executing” which means the Legislature must implement this directive as written in the Constitution–that they do not have leeway with it. Instead, what the Legislature has done repeatedly, like instituting MCL 168.472a, they placed “undue burdens” on the electorate by placing a time limit on the signature-gathering period. The original MCL 168.472 was deemed unconstitutional by the Wolverine Golf Club Supreme Court decision. Then the Legislature passed MCL 168.472a putting into place a 180-day time restriction on signature gathering. That was in 1973. It was done in RETALIATION to a ballot initiative that was being conducted during 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 to stop them from succeeding. That proposal was to reign in the Legislature’s pay and pension increases! So it was a direct hit against the People, and to protect their own salaries and pensions, completely self-serving. In 1974, attorney general Frank Kelley issued an opinion making the law unconstitutional, saying according to the constitution, the people have four years to collect the signatures, between governor’s elections (since Article 2 Section 9, which you quoted in your comment) says that’s the timing of the changes in signature requirements. In 1986, an ENERGY COMPANY somehow thought they had the right (and the Courts let them have standing, NOT a ballot initiative committee at the time) to challenge the AG opinion and they sued, saying Article 2 Section 9 is different than Article 12 Section 2 (the provision that governs constitutional amendment petitions) in that Article 2 Section 9 DOES limit the legislature, but that article 12 section 2 allows the Legislature more freedom. They won. The court made a ruling solely on Article 12 Section 2, saying that for constitutional amendment petitions, the Legislature CAN implement the 180-day law. The State of Michigan at that time was on our side, remember, saying that for both types of petitions, the law was unconstitutional. (Between 1974 and 1986 the people did enjoy their constitutional right to collect signatures for 4 years). For some strange reason, the State applied the Consumers Power court decision to both types of initiative anyway. For 30 years thereafter, the State placed this burden on the people when they shouldn’t have. When we pointed out this history in meetings of the Board of State Canvassers, our opponents got the law changed again, and this time made the law even more restrictive (making the 180 day rule absolute, when before “older” signatures were considered rebuttable and could be considered valid). So it’s been a constant tug by the Legislature to further restrict this right to initiative, again and again and again, always in retaliation to some ballot group that is doing something they don’t want to see go forward. That’s what the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan is going to set straight.
Part of the MODEL STATE CONST — REAL DEMOCRACY ON PAPER = REAL DEMOCRACY IN FACT
PART OF END OF THE RULE OF GERRYMANDER MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS
IN MICH—- 2-9 AND 12-2 WOULD BE REPLACED.
MSC Sec. 12. (1) The full text of a constitution amendment or law petition shall be filed with the secretary of state, be given a YEAR-NUMBER and be posted in public. New words shall be in bold. Current words to be removed shall be interlined.
(2) Petition form [12] point type, [8.5 by 11 inches]:
[CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT] [LAW] PETITION [YEAR-NUMBER]
[Text]
(3) Elector form [12] point type, [3.5 by 4.25 inches]:
I want to vote on [CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT] [LAW] PETITION [YEAR-NUMBER].
Elector signature, printed name, address and date signed.
Return to: (address)
(4) Elector forms for a constitution amendment (or law) shall be signed within [4 years] by registered Electors respectively equal to [8] or [6] percent of the number of Electors at the last regular election [for governor] and be filed and verified respectively by [105] and [70] days before the election day.
(5) The full text of a valid proposed constitution amendment or law shall be posted in public at 1 or more places in each precinct.
(6) Ballot form [12] point type:
Shall (CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT) (LAW) (YEAR-NUMBER) be approved?
YES [Box]
NO [Box]
(7) If a constitution amendment or law is approved by a majority of the Electors voting on it, then it shall take effect [7] days after the election day.
(8) If 2 or more constitution amendments (laws) approved at the same election conflict, then the amendment (law) receiving the most YES votes shall prevail.
(9) An approved law shall not violate this constitution and may only be amended or repealed by the Electors, but the legislature may propose to amend or repeal the law with at least [56] days notice.
(10) The above shall apply in like manner to the Electors, councils and ordinances in cities.
(11) This section shall be self-enforcing and shall also be enforced by general tort and criminal laws.