*1
v
CLERK
ANDERSON OAKLAND COUNTY
11).
(Calendar
15,
Argued June
No.
Docket No. 74338.
Order
21,
19,
Amendatory
1984.
order entered June
entered June
denying
entered
1984.
1984. Order
other motions
June
142.)
20, 1984.
ante,
August
(Reported
p
Opinions filed
Anderson,
Balzarini,
Gaskell,
D.
Jon M.
Bernard
Harold R.
Carol
Navarre,
Brown, Jr.,
U.
electors in
R.
and Kenneth
Oakland
County, brought
against
county clerk and
an action
board
canvassers,
declaratory judgment
1983 PA
of
for a
Legis-
the boundaries of election districts for the
which revised
enacted,
lature,
unconstitutionally
injunction
and for an
was
against
holding
special
Secretary
it.
of
elections under
The
Attorney
of State and the
General intervened as defendants.
Court,
LaPlata, J.,
George
Circuit
H.
found that
The Oakland
of the statute
uncon-
the course followed
enactment
was
stitutional,
enjoined
appeal.
the elections.
defendants
curiam,
opinion per
signed by
In an
Chief Justice Williams
Kavanagh, Ryan,
Cavanagh,
Boyle,
Brickley,
and Justices
Supreme
Court held:
Opinion of Court — Apportionment — 1. Constitutional Law Amendment of Bills Legislature. of purported Legislature, reapportion 1983 PA which was unconstitutional because it was so altered and amended housekeeping from time it was of introduced as a bill approved of amendments Law Election until it was that its original purpose changed, passed by was was because it during regular Legislature having a session without been in the (Const 1963, possession days of each house for at least five art 4, §§24,26).
Concurring Levin, J. — Apportionment — of Constitutional Law Amendment Bills Legislature. of purported reapportion Legislature, PA unconstitutionally was enacted because it was so altered and amended from the time it was introduced a bill of house- keeping approved amendments the Election Law until it was original purpose changed, and because it was Legislature passed during regular a session without having possession been in the of each house for at Sve least (Const 26). days §§ — Apportionment — 3. Constitutional Law Amendment of Bills Legislature. possession a bill been in Where has of both houses days least at Sve and there has not been bill, it satisfies constitutional requirements passage, for amendment and even if extensive changes adopted overnight substantive are with the attendant hasty snap judgment; possession if risk it has not been *3 days change of both houses for Sve or there been a in has purpose, requirements the constitutional are not even satisfied purpose avoiding judg- hasty if it could be shown that the of providing publicity fully ment and had some been satisSed in (Const 26). way other art §§ Coey, (by Foster, Swift, Collins & P.C. Theodore McKeague), plain- W. Swift and W. for David the tiffs. County Corporation (by Oakland Counsel Gordon Counsel) Wyllie, Corporation
R. Assistant for defendants. Kelley, Attorney General,
Frank J. J. Louis Gary Caruso, General, Solicitor and P. Gordon and Attorneys Gartner, General, Richard P. Assistant intervening Secretary of and defendants State Attorney General. Mich op the Court right of the The constitutional Per Curiam.
people
in
act
accordance
to have the
case.
the issue
is
with
constitution
specifically,
trans-
is whether the
issue
More
p.m.
11:30
Decem-
and
between
formation
22, 1983, of
1:35 a.m. December
and
ber
from
from a measure which had
Bill 4481
provided
county
April
that
December
of
duties
will
relieved
certain ministerial
clerks
legislation
amending
in-
relative
Detroit
and
Legis-
reapportioning the
measure
to a
come taxes
4, §
Consti-
24 of the
art
lature violates
provides
4, § 24
that
tution. Article
purpose
by
content
bill,
determined
total
of a
by
alone, shall not be altered or
its title
through
passes
either
of
it
the House
amended as
Representatives
This
con-
or the Senate.
Court
4, § 24
violated.
cludes
plaintiffs in the
at bar filed a lawsuit
case
among
things,
contending,
methods
other
passing
PA
256 violated this constitu-
used
provision. The
Circuit Court
tional
Oakland
agreed, finding
318 Opinion of the Court I A April 27, 1983, Bill 4481 intro- House On Representatives. Michigan House of the duced in amending pages encompassed devoted nine It Michigan eliminated Law.2 The bill the Election county requirement deliver absen- clerks township city in school clerks tee ballots to holding millage and elimi- elections late districts special provisions relating to a elec- nated certain City of Detroit.3 held tion on income taxes prepares Legislative Bureau, which Service Digest day Daily are introduced each bills Senate, bill in the House or described follows: tax;
"Elections; elections; elimi- special city income election”. special nate for 1981 obsolete House then to the Commit- bill was referred legislative part normal tee on Elections as process. on 8, 1983, the Committee
On House November reported Bill out of commit- Elections House Representatives. The next full tee House of pre- day Legislative Analysis Section the House describing provi- pared analysis an of the bill 2 1954 PA introduced, As 4481 was entitled: 497, 498, 639, 116 of 714 of Act No. "A bill to amend sections law,’ 'Michigan election sections the Public Acts of entitled section and 639 498 as 61 of the Public Acts as amended Act No. Section Act the Public Acts of amended No. of 140 of the Public Acts 1981, being Act 714 as amended sections No. 168.497, 168.498, 168.639, Com- and 168.714 Laws; repeal piled parts acts and of acts.” and to certain 1984] op the Court changes "housekeeping” sions as Election Law. The still retained the bill same title as it possessed on introduction and had the same con- tent. The House Committee on Elections recom- pass, mended that and was referred Reading compliance Second order of Bills4 in provision 4, § with another of art 26 which man- "[e]very dates that bill shall be read three times in each before final house thereof’. House Bill was read a time second on *6 Representative 30, 1983. November Sitz moved placed that Reading the bill be on the of order Third prevailed.5 of Bills. The motion Once again unchanged. title bill’s and content were Representa- 13, 1983,
On December the House of reading tives heard third bill. same day, passed by the bill a unanimous vote and was given immediate effect.6 Michigan Senate received House Bill 14,
on December 1983. The bill a was read first and second time title was to the and referred on Committee Senate Administration and Rules and Elections.7 The title and content Bill of House unchanged. 4481 remained
B wending way While House Bill 4481 was through legislative Legislature process, considering best, was how of this wake injunction Apportionment Court’s In to it in re 4 1983 House Journal 2361.
5 1983 House Journal 2551.
6 1983 House Journal 2600-2601. 7 1983 Senate Journal 2344. 419 Mich op the Court 96; 413 Mich 321 NW2d
State — (1982),8 reapportion itself. appropriate an the search for In the course of were were available but bill” several bills "vehicle apportioned Bill 3 would have Senate discarded. Representatives the Senate. This the House passed by on December the Senate bill was employed however, not, Bill 3 was 1983.9Senate reapportionment. for the vehicle bill directly 4045, reapportionment Bill like Senate Bill House qf Legislature. concerned reported by House Committee on This bill was Representatives on to the full House Elections However, Bill 4045 House December employed as the "vehicle” bill. still December On piece fairly innocuous before the Senate as legislation designed Elec- amend the reappor- Law, tion became the "vehicle bill” tionment. p.m. 21, 1983, the Senate
At 11:30 on December moved that was called to order. Senator Corbin Rules Committee on Senate Administration discharged further consider- from Elections be point at ation of House Bill *7 original The motion retained its title and content. prevailed. then moved Senator Corbin suspended House Bill be rules be and that placed prevailed passage. This motion also on immediate third time. was read a
and
bill
the bill
Senator Faust then offered as a substitute
Apportionment of State
We stated in In re
—1982:
plan resulting
redistricting
apportionment
from
"The
act,
changed
people
Court’s determination will stand until
government,
branches of this
the collective action of the other two
representatives
composed
persons
of
most immediate
of
who are the
people.”
in the election the substi- major legislative reapportionment tute awas bill. Cropsey, Senator bill, after the also question raised the of the bill’s substitute "consti- Tempore tutional infirmities”. The President Pro ger- of the Senate ruled that the substitute was passed. mane the bill. The then adjourned p.m.10 Senate at 11:54 Representatives The House convened at 12:01 a.m. on December 1983. It was noted that had Senate returned a substitute House Bill 4481. Speaker Representatives an- House nounced that under Rule 38 the House bill would day. Representative lie that House over one Forbes moved suspended Rule and the motion prevailed. Representative Bryant proposed some substitute, amendments to the Senate but adopted. amendments were not The substitute was put passed by ato vote and it was
101983 Senate Journal 2406-2407. *8 Mich op the Court agreed
Representatives. to the title House also given The bill was the Senate. as amended to the clerk and was referred effect immediate enrollment, presentation printing, the Gov- legislative action, the unrelated After some ernor. adjourned Representatives at 1:35 a.m. House of 22, 1983.11 on December signed 29, 1983, the Governor December On becoming the bill Substitute reapportion- provided that The act PA 256. Representatives would take the House of ment of reapportionment April while the effect on January 1, take effect on would of the Senate C resignation upon the arose The instant lawsuit February Representative Rudy on Nichols Representa- resignation, 1984. At the time of his represented District, the 20th House Nichols tive which then included Waterford Lake White Townships. April issued 2, 1984, the Governor On Although vacancy. election to fill the writ of primary specified to be a there was writ general special June and a election on August primary ulti- no on election mately Republican only one scheduled because nominating peti- filed one Democratic candidate Secretary State decreed the office. The tions for that the election to be held for Repre-
the office of
for the
District would be
sentative of the 20th
district as defined
the new
in
As noted earlier in this this Court granted appeal prior leave to to decision Appeals. Court of On June we issued an affirming order the trial court.
II
In most of the
in
situations
which this Court has
interpret
legislation
been asked to
whether
com-
ported
requirements
with the
of Const
predecessors,
art
§ 24 and its
we have con-
legislation
fronted claims that the
afoul
ran
of the
ñrst sentence of this section:
object,
"No law shall embrace more than one
expressed
shall be
in its title”.
repeated
While
references
in
have been made
arguments
parties,
and the
of the
in-
briefs
opinion,
changes
deed
in
to the nature of and
emphasize
the title of 1983 PA
let
at
us
outset
that
the instant case does not
involve a
"title-object” problem.
Indeed the title as ulti-
mately agreed
Legislature
may fairly
on
be
legisla-
express
object
said to well
the final
of the
reapportionment.
tion,
is,
Rather,
that
we make
way
reference to the
title
this act as it made its
Ill ruling In 1983 PA 256 had been enacted in 4, § constitution, violation the trial opined: court "It is clear to this court from 1950 *10 1960’s,
Constitutional Convention of the it was the purpose persons reforming require- of those the notice procedures enacting protect ment public’s right for new laws to the being legislated.
to know what was This right legislative process to know is basic to the and this ignore court cannot actions taken which are in contra- principle. vention to that adopts language "This court the in of Justice Morse Saginaw County Supervisors,
Sackrider v Board of (1889)], Mich 59 NW 165 it to the effect that is the [44 duty of courts to insure that of the state obeyed. constitution are argument
"This rejects court the of defendants re- garding compliance support substantial and finds no for argument providing reapportionment that a bill for germane original to the act which housecleaning was in the nature of a of the Election Code.
"This court
further
that
By supra, Supervisors, Board of this Court was called bill, the substitution of a decide whether upon legislative session fifty days the first after prior for a bill introduced within the expired, had the introduction of a period constituted fifty-day of art 28 of the consti- bill” in violation "new original provided for Specifically, tution. in portion of a of a road Mid- the discontinuance bill, however, provided The substitute County. land Saginaw roads in County. for the construction that the second bill The defendants admitted was substitute, matter subject but contended germane was to the substitute bill of the first bill ultimately passed. judge The trial found act was invalid. This Court affirmed. Court, con- writing Justice stated Morse, applicable we find equally siderations which to us almost a present century case which comes later: provision "If the constitutional can ever be evaded or passing reporting
violated
of a substitute for
bill,
certainly
an
it
has been evaded and vio-
legislation
upheld
And if this
lated
it
quoted
this case.
can be
provision
would seem
the constitutional
above
prevent
against
is worthless to
the evil
which it
reported
manifestly
is
substitute for a
connection with or relation in the remotest
directed. If a new bill can be
as a
bill,
subject-matter
no
of which has
degree
subject-matter
guise
of such new
of a
bill under the
substitute,
perceive
then
is difficult
the use or
provision.”
value of this
constitutional
79 Mich
*11
main,
appellants
prior
on two
rely,
Moeller v Wayne
Court,
decisions of this
Supervisors,
Board of
505;
279 Mich
NW
(1937),
Dep’t
and United States
Co v
Gypsum
(1961).
Revenue,
548;
363 Mich
NW2d
In decide, Moeller this Court was asked to inter alia, whether 1933 PA an amendment to 1851 PA violated Const in that it had been altered or in amended its passage through so as to original purpose. originally introduced, As the bill question pay super- in Moeller dealt with the finally passed visors, while as it also concerned the supervisors regard duties of with to contracts and holding public of other offices. This Court upheld validity legislation after first stating: determining
"In
whether or not a bill has been
changed’
'altered or
we are
not limited
the title or
contents of the bill as introduced into either branch of
legislature,
but to the
being
title of the act which is
amended.”
We concluded:
opinion
"We are of the
that the
as are now
comprehended
found
the act are
and included in the
title of the
act. The amended act relates to the
powers and
supervisors
duties of boards of
and is not
upon
invalid
ground.”
By way of Moeller, contrast with the situation in although originally House Bill 4481 was cast as an amendment of Law, the Election when it was passed finally and became 1983 256 it PA amended nothing, entity. but was itself a distinct Thus there *12 1984] Opinion of the Court is no title of the amended act to use as a measur- ing device.
Further, decided, at the time Moeller was Michi- gan provided simply 5, § Const art part relevant that:
"No shall be altered or amended on its through change either house so as to original pur- its pose.” quoted
As the record of the Constitutional Conven- present demonstrates, however, tion constitu- "tightened]” by adding phrase tion has been by "as determined its total content and not alone by 4, § Thus, its title” to art 24.12 concentration of analysis inappropriate. on title alone is now Refer- ence must also be made to the contents the bill. Gypsum supra,
In United Co, States this Court (com- upheld constitutionality PA of 1953 tax) monly known as the business activities against a claim that there had been a violation of "five-day rule” because a substitute bill which passed ultimately had not been before the * * * 12"Mr. proposal], Kuhn: Toward the end we use this [of language starting on line 'No bill shall be altered or amended on passage through its as again, change original purpose either house so as to its by determined its total content and not alone its title.’ Once you People if will read the Address to the of the 1908 conven tion, they tight people wanted this air so the were aware of what was legislature up they to be before the when a bill was so have some only going step tight people idea. This is will have change a further to make it so the particular they some idea of what inis bill and so can’t purpose.” Record, 2 Official Constitutional Convention Proposal p Committee “step by delegate phrase further” alluded to Kuhn towas add the "as determined its total content and not alone its title” to the existing language Michigan provided Const part: in relevant passage through "No new bill shall be altered or amended on its original purpose.” either house so as to 419 Mich Opinion of the Court days. for five This Court Representatives House of stated:
"Appellant
the substitute was substan-
contends
original,
proce-
tially different from the
legislature
public-
employed by
defeated the
dure
(Const
knowledge purpose of article
22 and 23
§§
*13
1908).
spelled
public-knowledge purpose is not
out
requirement
may have been
in the constitutional
—and
shows)
(for
beyond
greatest
fulfilled
all this record
the
were,
expectations
certainly
of 1908. Differences there
indicated,
question
the
remains as to
as we have
but
pur-
similarity
whether or not there was sufficient
germane.
pose as to be described as
question of
an amendment of substitute is
"The
when
germane
original
the
bill is a difficult one. See 158
or
ALR
annotation. The test
whether
method)
change (by
represented an amendment
either
purpose
original,
of the
or extension of the basic
subject
entirely
introduction of
new and different
mat-
(3d
Sutherland,
ed),
Statutory
805.
ter.
Construction
purpose,
"If the actual situation revealed the latter
legislation
this Court has not hesitated to hold void
procedural
requirements
enacted
evade the
places
legislation.
Sagi-
the Constitution
on
Sackrider v
County
Supervisors,
naw
Board of
IV
Michigan
We conclude that two
require
finding
Constitution
that
hasty provide and to notice public to the irrespective of under consideration legislative
of merit.13 five-day change purpose The rule and the of provided The Constitution of 1850 in art 28 that: during "No new bill shall be introduced into either house the last session, days three of the without the unanimous consent of the house originates.” in which it provision repealed replaced following: This in 1860 with the 419 Mich op the Court
provision in the same article and were contained of 1908. Const art section of Constitution change 5, § 22. It clear that the function of the purpose provision, in the Constitution of of both in the Constitution of 190814 and as modified five-day 1963,15 of is to fulfill the command rule. by measured the title of the act or
Whether five-day act, title and contents of the rule the could be rendered ineffective purpose provision. change without a of change equally It is clear that a purpose standing meaning- rule alone would be purpose any less, because time the bill was changed it would be a new bill which could be passed pur- immediately. sum, In the alteration of pose provision operates as an ultimate limitation prevent five-day rule. evasion of the original only similarities between Bill 4481 and the the numbers substitute bill were People and the clause "The of the State which read enact”. There was a clear violation 4, § 24, art an and nullification of the five- evasion day rule. Legisla- "No new bill shall be introduced into either house days expired.” fifty
ture after the first of a shall have session clearly expressed by This the consti function was the framers of tution in connection with Const 22:§ prevent hasty "This is a new It and careless section. was inserted action, also, legislative tion. The printed snap legisla- effectively with to deal so-called provision passed until it has been that no bill shall be days possession and in the for five means much of each house greater publicity whereby legislative proceedings. provided Time is thus proposed legislation people may acquainted with become remonstrate, petition, passed. believed and to that before a bill is It is provision measurably improve legislative will the tone of * * * provision action. no shall be altered on its possibil- so as to ity evaded”. Official (Emphasis is included so that no publicity day can the secured the five rule be nullified or Record, p Constitutional Convention original.) *15 15See fn 12. 1984] Opinion op the Court V persuaded We are the two-hour-and-five- metamorphosis minute of House Bill 4481 from a pedestrian proposal fairly alleviate some burdens of local clerks and to remove some obso- provisions concerning regarding lete the Detroit means for an election entirely
Income Tax into an
new
reapportionment
Legislature
con-
entirely
stituted "the introduction of
new and
subject
Gypsum
matter”,
different
Co,
United States
supra, p
554, in the face of a clear constitu-
provision
prohibited
tional
the action taken.
VI
making
ruling
case,
In
our
in this
we ascribe no
improper
Legislature.
or
intentions
motives to the
appears
of
72, bears here: record, "We cannot shut eyes our to this —to read, which he may who runs —for saving if applied any or consequences, this other statute. The evil any, case, precedent follow our decision a as statutes, existing to other will not be of our creation, necessary legislation but the result of such us, this before if the regarded Constitution is to be *16 Mich 313 419 332 by Opinion Levin, J. keepers. its Such considera- of respected the hands holding upon other laws as the effect of our tions bear passed way in the same cannot may have been as against duty in as a case
weight this.” plain our clear of error are with- other contentions Appellants’ the Circuit judgment The of Oakland out merit. affirmed. Court is C.J., and Ryan, Kavanagh, Williams, Brick- JJ., concurred. and Boyle, Cavanagh,
ley, 19, 1984, (concurring). this June J. On Levin, follow, order,1 opinion to an Court entered with 1 19,1984 as June order reads follows: The appeal prior having brought by to Court cause been to this "This having argued by by Appeals been counsel the Court of and decision Court, by having the it is been thereon and hereby of that deliberation had due County judgment of for the ordered that the the Circuit Court affirmed, stay of the effectiveness is this Court’s of Oakland judgment 1983 256 is vacated. The Court holds that PA is 1963, of Const of second sentence unconstitutional as violation the 4, provides its or amended on art passage 24 which 'No bill shall be altered through change purpose as so as its either house to by by title’. The Court total and not alone its determined its content nominating procedures under heretofore conducted further holds that 5, 256, including special primary held June 1983 PA the election 1984, are invalid. that, of a law "It is further in the absence of the enactment ordered providing given effect June otherwise and immediate before (a) Legislature will be conducted nomination and elections for the Apportionment adopted of in In within districts this Court re as (b) (1982), for Legislature-1982, Mich date State Legislature qualifying extended to shall for for election to nomination Tuesday, July question, pursuant urgency to of of this GCR "Because 866.3(c) judgment order forthwith. the Clerk is directed to issue this opinion of the Court will follow.” 21, 1984, following June order was entered: On Court, defendants-appellants Secre- of motion "On order tary Attorney Court’s State for amendment General considered, 19, 1984, plaintiffs-appellees immediately is order of June requested having responded in June objection they no the relief have grants requested and the order motion. This Court relief provide follows: therefore amended to qualifying "I. date for nomination 27,1984, p.m. Representatives 4:00 be June at shall 1984] Levin, J.
stating
I Act divides state into 38 senatorial and representative reap- districts and constitutes a portionment of the that differs from *17 plan approved by May 21, this Court on 1982. Apportionment Legislature In re of State 1982,— (1982).3 96, 212; 413 Mich 565 NW2d originated Act 256 as House Bill 4481. As intro- passed by House, duced and the bill would provisions have amended of the Election con- Law cerning special a election on income taxes held in delivery in Detroit 1981 and the of absentee bal- person filing Michigan petition "II. A for election House of Representatives petition shall not be allowed to withdraw the after 29, 1984, June at 12:00 noon. Challenges sufficiency petition “III. to of a for election to the 29,1984, shall be no filed later than June at 12:00 noon. may necessary changes precinct "IV. Since it be to make in bounda- implement order, ries in some instances to the Court’s the clerks of a city township hereby necessary or changes are authorized to make administra- approval tive with of State of Director Elections. delegate county political “V. Candidates for who conventions previously petitions placed have precinct filed shall be on ballot they in which reside. political parties certify “VI. Minor shall nominees for the office of representative clerk, Secretary county state applica- of or State if ble, 6, 1984, August p.m. no later than at 5:00 J., "Cavanagh, participating.” object, "Sec. No law shall embrace more than one which shall expressed be in its title. No bill shall be altered amended on its passage through original purpose either house so as to its 1963, determined art total content and not alone its title.” Const 24.§ plan approved by Court set forth Public and Local Michigan, 1983, pp Session 983 ff. Acts— Mich Levin, J. re- The Senate district elections. in school lots it was and December the bill on ceived to a committee. referred midnight Shortly December on before up Bill took House Senate convened the and tionment. reappor- legislative provide for it to amended provisions of the title and all entirety. title A new in their eliminated were legislative reapportion- concerning and ment approved by thereupon substituted, the bill was were midnight, Shortly after the Senate. Representatives convened. Substitute House of the House House, was transmitted to Bill 4481 adjourning approved 1:35 a.m. at before which 22, 1983. on December signed
Subsequently, bill, the Governor Legisla- approved by the 256. As so Act it became ture House aspects only Governor, the and the substitute Bill 4481 to be found its number became Act were enacting (4481) required4 constitutionally and the People en- the State clause: "The act”.
II provides that no bill shall The constitution *18 regular passed the law at session of or become a printed reproduced until it has or been possession at least in of each house for and is five the days.5 "to limitation is The of this Const 23.§ art passed any regular a "Sec. 26. shall be or become law at No bill printed reproduced legislature the until it house and session of in the has been or Every possession days. shall least five bill of each for at passage the final thereof. No be read three times in each house before majority of the shall become a law without the concurrence of a serving passage final members elected to and in each house. On the bills, voting thereon shall be the votes and names of the members journal. the 26. entered in Const Opinion by Levin, J. prevent hasty legislative action”, and careless "to legislation”, effectively snap deal with so-called require "greater legislative publicity in and to proceedings”.6 safeguard against provi- To those being by an sions evaded amendment a bill that following appears in the Record the Constitutional Conven tion of 1907: prevent hasty a It "This is new section. was inserted to and careless action, also, legislative effectively legisla- snap to deal with so-called provision passed tion. The printed that no bill be until shall been has possession days in the of each house for five means much greater legislative publicity proceedings. provided in Time is thus people may whereby acquainted proposed legislation the become with remonstrate, petition, passed. and to or a bill before is It is believed provision improve measurably legislative will the tone of legislature special action. When the is in convened session revi- the expressly gover- sion limits its action to those matters in stated the proclamation. wisely sphere nor’s legislature, This limits the of action of the special session; governor’s proclamation public legislature notice undertake. The so ity lawfully to of the work can provision passage that no bill shall be altered on its change original purpose possibil- as to is included so that no publicity day can the secured five rule be nullified Record, evaded.” (Emphasis p Official Constitutional Convention 1422. original.) in the following appears Record the Constitutional Conven- tion of 1961: opinion "The committee is of the this section should be strengthened retained [the legislation. somewhat. The first sentence of the section five-day provision] preventive against hasty is a and careless publicity It given pending legislative allows to be action so unprinted amendments, any provision the electorate prevent becomes informed. This does not prevents but the last sentence of the section change original purpose. change-in-purpose provision] "The last sentence was first found [the provision in the 1908 constitution. The that no amendment is allowed original purpose preclude which would a bill’s is to possibility publicity provision day the 5 insured will not be nullified or evaded. language strengthens provision. By "The new reference to alone, provision title confining title too broad would circumvent the original purpose. bills to their opinion 'original purpose’ provi- "The committee is of that the along requirement printed days sion with the that bills must be for 5 prior is a limitation which should retained. Action prove likely taken in haste is itself in the best interests of people.” Record, pp Official Constitutional Convention 2334- *19 419 313 336 Mich by Levin, J. possession or houses of one both been in the
has requisite time,7 further the the constitution for provides amended "no bill shall be altered or through as to either house so its on change determined, by original purpose as its its title”.8 total content and alone claiming plaintiffs action, commenced The court unconstitutional.9 circuit Act 256 is appeal granted held, this Court leave to so Appeals. prior of to Court decision relying Attorney General, on Moeller v Supervisors, Wayne County 279 Mich Board of (1937), argues Act 514; NW 272 886 appor- because its 256 constitutional substance — germane tionment —is to elections and provided originally 4481 as for amend- introduced to the Election Law. Moeller concerned ments § PA 30 an earlier 1933 which amended of rejecting In that Act 84 vio- act.10 contention 6. See fn 8See fn 2. registered seek Plaintiffs 20th House District and are voters in the enjoin general special as constituted a election in that district required August 1984. No Act held on under primary cratic candidate 256 otherwise to be required Republican Demo- only and one because one filed. compensation of of of a board Section 30 concerned the members introduced, only amendatory supervisors. act com concerned As enacted, original pensation. that civil provisions it not in the As contained receiving any precluded appointment supervisors members of a board of from (except county authority any where or from within charter) any village by city being from interested authorized county. PA contract or transaction with the See business amending 1929 CL enacted, only bill, one In Moeller amended introduced title. original no act and was thus section The added there supervisors provisions, precluding a member of board county obtaining either from from holding seem to have been additional remuneration contracts, county county being office or interested other substantially related (estab- being original amendatory lishing the act amended bill and 30 of supervisors), compensation of board of members of a purported to amend. both the and enacted bill Oakland v Opinion by Levin, J. change-in-purpose provision lated the Constitution, this Court stated that was "not *20 limited the title or of the bill by contents as introduced into either branch of the legislature, amended”, to title of the act being but the which is it the opinion and that was of "that the provisions comprehended as are now found in the act are and original included in the title of the act. The amended to the powers act relates and duties of supervisors boards of and is not upon invalid ground”.
Moeller concerned an amendatory act. Although Bill 4481 House was introduced approved and by act, the as an amendatory ceased be an act amendatory when the Senate eliminated all the of House Bill except the num- clause, ber 4481 and the enacting and added the reapportionment provisions. substitute The substi- bill, original tute in with contrast House Bill was not an Thus, amendment of the Election Law. if being even the of an act amended may considered, the reapportionment provisions are regarded germane Law, as the Election and germaneness is the test or standard for determin- ing whether there was a change in purpose, Moel- ler is not in point because Act is not an and, act amendatory unlike original House. 4481, did not purport to amend the Law. Election
In United States Gypsum
Dep’t Revenue,
Co v
363 Mich
556;
(1961),
bill enacted In so hold- on income. a tax imposing revenue an the test of whether stated the Court ing, "germane” or substitute amendment "an represents is whether original bill purpose of of the basic or extension amendment new entirely or the introduction original, The Court said that matter”. subject different enacted that case of the bill major purposes of the bill original objectives "all within were title of and as described first introduced of the bill”. original version States Gypsum United only Moeller —the change- involving the by this Court cases decided decided before in-purpose provision —were its current form. took provision change-in-purpose total content and The words "as determined *21 1963 title” were added not alone its by recom- proposal The committee Constitution.11 original to the adding these words mended they would stated provisions constitutional to the By reference "strengthen[ provision. ] circumvent alone, a title too broad would title original pur- to their confining bills provisions pose”.12 substituting In
Act 256 is unconstitutional. subject for the reapportionment matter of subject 256 intro- Act original matter of mat- subject different an new and "entirely duced whatso- commonality ter”.13 There is no possession requiring remain in the bill The days prohibiting amend alteration or least five each house for at ment "so as to adopted purpose” change original first were 5, 22, of the 1908 Constitution. Record, p 2334. See fn Convention 2 Official Constitutional 6 for text. procedures primarily with election is concerned The Election Law upon. office generally voted The the office to be and does not establish separate or in generally in the constitution established either by Levin, J. reapportioning Legisla- Act ever between ture, House Bill would relating have amended the Election Law to deliv- ery district election absentee ballots of school special is, thus, in the 1981 election Detroit. There germaneness no need to consider now whether or test or standard other than the some other lan- change-in-purpose provision guage of the itself is governing test or standard.
Ill
Attorney
argues
change-in-
General
that the
provision
purpose
age
was satisfied
the media cover-
legislative
reappor-
consideration of the
question,
subject
tionment
which was the
matter
possession
in
other bills that had not been
days.
inquiry
of both houses for five
under the
possession
constitution is whether the bill is in the
days
of both houses
five
and whether there has
change
purpose.
been a
in
If these constitutional
requirements
satisfied,
have been
the constitution
is not violated even if extensive substantive
changes
adopted overnight
are
the attendant
with
snap
hasty
judgment. Conversely,
risk of
or
where
possession
a bill has not been in
houses
both
days
pur-
for five
there has been a
pose,
requirements
the constitutional
are not satis-
part
fied
if it
even
could be shown material not
of the Journals of
the House and Senate14that
legislation
statutory provi-
or local charter authorized
law. The
governing
representative
sions
tricts were
in
the boundaries of senatorial and
dis-
compiled
Chapter
concerning
and not
*22
Chapter
concerning
(concerning
168
IV Finally, the Attorney General argues this challenge late, comes too and that providing relief will impede the orderly conduct of the 1984 primary general Court, elections. This in response to Reynolds v Sims, 533; US 84 S 1362; Ct 12 L Ed (1964), 2d 506 entered an order on June reapportioning the Legislature. Nevertheless, there was an orderly election in 1964. Although arguable this action should have been com- earlier, menced Court’s order of June 21,1984,15 amended on June will not preclude the orderly conduct of the 1984 It elections. would not be appropriate for this Court to allow the 1984 elections for the House to be carried out in legislative districts prescribed in an unconstitutional law where that can be avoided and an orderly election can be conducted.16
15See fn 1 for text.
only question presented
by this action is whether Act 256 is
violative of
question
Const
Legisla
24. The
whether the
may,
(In
subsequent
4,May
ture
Apportionment
re
—
supra,
144),
p
reapportionment
presented.
enact a
bill was not
(see
question
Legislature
whether
of the State of California v
Deukmejian,
658;
781;
Rptr
34 Cal
[1983]),
3d
194 Cal