934 N.W.2d 650
Mich.2019Background
- Fred Paquin served as chief of police and an elected director for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe (a federally recognized Indian tribe in Michigan).
- In 2010 Paquin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States based on misuse of federal funds while serving in tribal office and was sentenced to incarceration.
- In 2013 and 2015 Paquin sought to run for St. Ignace city council; the city manager refused ballot access relying on Const 1963, art 11, § 8 (a 2010 constitutional amendment disqualifying persons convicted of certain felonies related to their official capacity in “local, state, or federal government” within the prior 20 years).
- Paquin sued for a declaratory judgment that his tribal service is not service in “local, state, or federal government” under art 11, § 8; the circuit court dismissed his complaint, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court granted review in lieu of leave.
- The narrow legal question presented: whether a federally recognized Indian tribe is a “local…government” under Const 1963, art 11, § 8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does art 11, § 8’s phrase “local…government” encompass a federally recognized Indian tribe? | Paquin: tribal offices are not offices in a state/local/federal government; tribal sovereign status excludes them from the constitutional disqualification. | City/AG: tribal governments perform local governmental functions and thus qualify as “local government” under the provision; prior AG opinion supports that view. | The Court: a federally recognized Indian tribe is not a “local…government” under art 11, § 8; the term refers to domestic local political subdivisions, not tribal sovereigns. |
| Does “federal government” in the same clause include foreign or other federal systems (affecting the scope of “local”)? | Paquin: N/A (focus on local). | City/AG: N/A. | The Court: context shows “federal government” refers specifically to the United States federal government; that limits the scope of the other terms. |
| Can the Court decide the issue despite the November 2015 election having passed (mootness)? | Paquin: sought broader declaratory relief and indicated intent to run again; dispute not necessarily moot. | City/AG (and dissent): the case became moot after the election; plaintiff could have sought earlier or expedited review, so the matter should be dismissed as moot. | Majority: did not find the record sufficient to sua sponte dismiss as moot and addressed the merits; Dissent (Markman J.) would have held the case moot and declined to reach merits. |
| Should tribal sovereign status be treated as functionally equivalent to local government for this constitutional disqualification? | Paquin: tribal sovereignty is distinct and thus not within the meaning of “local government.” | City/AG: functional similarity (local services) makes tribes fit within “local government.” | The Court: tribes are different in kind (domestic dependent nations with inherent sovereignty) and are not included as “local…government” in art 11, § 8. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831) (describing tribes as “domestic dependent nations”)
- Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (recognizing tribes’ exercise of inherent sovereign authority)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (discussing tribal self-governance rights)
- Bonner v. City of Brighton, 495 Mich 209 (2014) (standard of review for constitutional interpretation)
- Studier v. Mich. Pub. Sch. Employees’ Retirement Bd., 472 Mich 642 (2005) (seek common understanding of constitutional text at ratification)
- Lapeer Co. Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit Court, 469 Mich 146 (2003) (interpret provisions in context of the whole document)