Apportionment of Wayne County Board of Commissioners—1982

413 Mich APPORTIONMENT COUNTY BOARD OF OF WAYNE

COMMISSIONERS — 1982 BOARD OF OF INGHAM COUNTY APPORTIONMENT COMMISSIONERS — 1982 (Calendar 2). 1, Argued April 69155. Nos. Docket Nos. 5,May Decided 1982. (WCAC), County Apportionment Wayne after Commission The figures population receiving official of the 1980 decennial census, proposed plans adopted United one several States Thereafter, peti- apportion districts. commissioner Appeals by citizens of were filed in the Court of certain tions Westland, Dearborn, Heights, alleg- Dearborn the cities of guidelines, plan adopted statutory ing was violative of involved, partisan political and that considerations were plan. study produce a better the WCAC would further response, Appeals, Following R. B. the WCAC’s the Court of JJ., Burns, P.J., Allen, held that and T. M. Burns failing apportionment plan was void for to meet the WCAC’s plan requirements a lack of of the law and that the showed equal population. good-faith effort to achieve districts of express remanded to the WCAC with instructions cause was modify plan adopt plan by the Court or to a new for review 62577). (Docket applies Appeals Nos. The WCAC appeal. leave to (ICAC)similarly Ingham County Apportionment Commission all, adopted apportion In its commissioner districts. plans population deviation were submitted. All had a zero however, among districts; plans degree to differed in the remaining statutory guidelines. they A adhered to the petition Appeals by East was filed in the a citizen of Court [1, ^{[2] [6]} Inequalities 25 Am Jur 3-5] 25 Am Jur rendering apportionment 2d 1282. Am25 Jur 2d, 2d, References Elections 31. Elections 2d, Elections 19. § for Points in Headnotes 32. unconstitutional —federal election districts or § voting cases. districts 12 L Ed County Apportionment —1982 Lansing, alleging plan adopted that the violated certain of the guidelines compared unfavorably and that it plans, with other requesting adopt that the Court order the ICAC to a new approve plan among or those submitted which best requirements conforms to Following of law. the ICAC’s response, Burns, Appeals, P.J., the Court of R. B. and T. M. Allen, JJ., Burns and held that the apportion- ICAC’s ment, exactness, while it achieved mathematical was void for violating subsidiary statutory guidelines and remanded the express cause to the adopt ICAC with instructions to a new (Docket 62911). and to submit it to the Court No. The applies appeal. ICAC for leave to opinion per signed by In an curiam Chief Justice Coleman Levin, Kavanagh, Fitzgerald, and Justices Supreme and Court held: judgments Appeals The remanding of the Court of to the not, commissions are affirmed. The Court did however, agree reasoning with the Appeals. of the Court of apportionment plan county An for a board of commissioners preserve city must be drawn township both to boundary and statutory apportionment lines and to accord with guide- other possible lines to violating equal protection the extent without guarantees of the United States Constitution. power Legislature 1. The provide representation of the to for county on boards of by commissioners is limited the state township constitutional city representation. scheme of The constitution, framers people it, of the approving and the in did person-one not intend concept the one vote would be implemented establishing Rather, county in boards. the scheme representation represented was that the districts would be townships cities, persons and that the would who consti- supervisors tute the board of ordinarily would be those who supervisors had been townships elected as and as officials of city government designated or appointed by who would be or Legislation those who had been elected. under the Constitution allowing of 1908 city’s representatives election of a to the board supervisors was, effect, given approval in constitutional when provision the 1908 constitutional was carried forward into the Constitution of appear and therefore it does not that the concept representatives on the board would be the heads political of the constituent subdivisions has the status of a requirement. Legislature free, constitutional except was townships, provide by people for direct election of the board, free, members of the but it was not under the Constitu- provide tion of for the establishment of election dis- Mich having boundary boundary tricts lines that do not follow the townships lines of or cities. invalidity provi- 2. The under the federal constitution of the representative township sion for one on the board from each poses question town- whether the constitutional scheme of ship city representation county To boards is severable. Legislature hold that is free to abandon the scheme of township representation city boards would be to Legislature power relieve the of a limitation on its which has existed since 1850. A decision that the scheme is severable perceived holding enforces the same value which the Court severable, legislative apportionment provisions the state not enlarging power Legislature that of not of the without Legisla- people. vote of the therefore holds that the Court provide representation on of commis- ture cannot the board townships except sioners other than from and cities to the required Equal extent Protection Clause of the Four- Supreme teenth Amendment as elucidated Court concept person-one United States. The of one vote is embod- Equal in the Protection Clause of the state constitution and ied county govern- is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of original scope Equal ment. The of the state constitution’s changed invalidity Protection Clause is not because of the provisions. some those constitutional concerning 3. Both the statute charter counties and that concerning require county counties non-charter commis- preserve city township drawn sioner district lines be to and lines, cities, townships, villages, precincts and that and shall be only necessary population divided if to meet the standard. The statutory guidelines apportionment for of boards of commission- require rigid, ers in non-charter counties cannot to a be read compliance exhaustive with each criterion in the order set proceeding forth the statute before to the next. Such a t reading succeeding would render some of the criteria ineffective city and would violate the constitutional scheme of and town- rather, ship representation. guidelines, require The that com- preserve township, village, city, missioner districts be drawn to precinct boundary possible and lines to the extent without exceeding range divergence of allowable for constitution, equality under the federal until the Su- 11.9% otherwise, preme Court of the United States declares at the principle equal population least cost to the federal between preservation election districts consistent with the maximum plans comply such lines. Between two or more which with that Wayne County —1982 shape standard, squareness to the extent in compactness and govern. practicable shall county part of a effort on 4. Good-faith alone, districts, will not drawing commissioner in commission challenge. A reason- automatically a to enable survive ordinarily judgment exercise of in the reasoned able choice However, in accord with must be sustained. should be and requirements state constitutions the federal and applicable statutes. Ryan, dissent- Moody,joined by Justices Williams Justice Appeals erred in the ing part, Court of hold that the in would County, not been demon- that error has but case of case, although Ingham County the order of the in strated requirements, on encroached Appeals, of its in some Court of body. quasi-legislative the actions of provide the establish- Legislature for is not bound 1. The preserve which county election districts commissioner ment of provision township boundary of the state city lines. The orga- required in of commissioners boards constitution township one from each counties to consist of member nized Equal county under the Protec- is unconstitutional within the purported Amendment. The of the Fourteenth tion Clause representation the words of cannot remain without for scheme inseparable provision; it is from the the state constitutional township. Legisla- member to each invalid allotment of one ture, enacting for the of charter in statutes counties, by the unconstitution- filled the void left non-charter ality provision the board from each one member of for Furthermore, specifically township. the Constitution of 1963 powers Legislature authority provide grants for the addition, significant with the In it made a break of counties. township representation politi- city as historical scheme of permitting Legislature county cal units on boards procedures county providing draft home rule and government may permit organization the law form different from that set forth in the constitution. Legislature design any system apportionment as is free to long Equal run Protection Clause of does not afoul of the guide- Legislature provided the federal constitution. The has require apportionment organized lines for counties which apportionment governed by county commissions to be the crite- guidelines, importance. in Under the ria their stated order of equality population controlling is to be the consideration districts, remaining apportionment of commissioner but guidelines without are also to be considered and followed 413 Mich 224 excluding any, observing rearranging the stated order. After give political boundary the stated order of the criteria so as to primacy, lines the Court concludes commis- adopt plans population sions are free to which deviate from equality preserve inviolability long of the boundaries so standard, as the deviation does not Such exceed 11.9%. developed presented of fact out from those situations diiferent cases, by these need not and should not be set. Each case Although hierarchy be examined on its facts. in the should guidelines establishing the consideration of districts as nearly equal population practicable given primacy, as is say only that is that the other criteria need be consulted apportionment plan population an after attains zero deviation. applied by Appeals The standard be the Court of in review- ing apportionment plan an is whether an com- good-faith comply mission made an honest and effort to guidelines. statutory Upon filing petition 2. of a for review of a apportionment plan, Appeals the Court of must ascertain plan requirements whether the meets the of the laws of the plan state. Where it determines that a fails to adhere to statutory requirements, mandates or constitutional it cannot approve plan. Appeals The Court of has said that the laws require apportionment plan provide of the state that an among zero may deviation commissioner districts before it compliance statutory guidelines. examined for with the other concept equality of absolute noted in earlier federal cases by subsequent Supreme has been revised case law. The Court of permitted United States has held that the states are flexibility legislative apportionment in state and that a rational policy justify precise equal- state could minor deviations from ity. equality required by Absolute is not the federal or state Legislature, enacting appor- constitutions. Nor did the guidelines, tionment equality apply intend that should to the phrase exclusion nearly equal of the other criteria. The "as practicable” as is does not mean mathematical equality. Appeals rejecting The Court of erred in the WCAC ground on the that it did not achieve absolute mathemati- equality among cal commissioner districts. statutory apportionment guidelines only 3. The state that the Appeals, reviewing plan adopted by apportion- Court of an commission, ment must determine whether the meets the requirements Appeals of the laws of the state. The Court of has adopted require a standard of review which would a commis- Apportionment —1982 requirements of the adopt plan meets which best to the sion achieving guidelines mathematical apportionment after the appor- in an little equality. leaves Such a standard discretion support the Although the record must tionment commission. followed the commission that a conclusion Legislature intend to plan, adopting the did guidelines to be standard of a commission. limit the discretion so adopted an plan demonstrates the should he whether followed comply the criteria. good-faith effort to honest and seriously plans considered analysis comparative of the 4. A all the considered that the WCAC by the WCACdemonstrates importance an and made of guidelines stated order in their plan adhered to good-faith to select effort honest and Thus, plan adopted by meets the the WCAC criteria. those state, judgment of the and the requirements of the laws Appeals should be reversed. in the WCACcase Court ICAC, adhering adopted by to absolute plan while 5. The equality, that the commis- not demonstrate does mathematical guidelines. Com- gave adequate the other consideration to sion ICAC, plan plans considered three other peared plan. equal It did not worst adopted or to the was the worst comply good-faith with the effort to an honest and demonstrate requiring Appeals guidelines. did not err The Court adopt meeting, and first its board size at its ICAC to choose copies days, of all and to submit within ten submit a new plans considered, requiring vote on all plans err in but it did requiring each commissioner’s reasons for submitted and unnecessary requirements unwise encroach- are vote. Such body. quasi-legislative upon the actions of a ments Moody because of with Justice Justice Williams concurred necessity urgent to accom- compelling decision in order schedule, right time but reserved modate the election opinion expanding his views. submit a later Opinion op the Court — — — — Consti- 1. Statutes Guidelines Counties tutional Law. county must commissioner districts

A township boundary preserve city and be in lines both requirements statutory guidelines other accord with (US Const, XIV; Am Const the federal and state constitutions 45.505, 45.514,' 46.401, 1, 2, 2, 7; art MCL §§ art 5.359[4]). 46.404; 5.302[5],5.302[14],5.359[1], MSA 413 Mich 224 — — Apportionment — Equal 2. Constitutional Law Counties Protection. provides county govern- The Constitution of 1963 for a scheme of requiring representation townships ment on cities county boards of commissioners which is inconsistent with the concept person-one vote; scope Equal of one of the state Protection Clause consistent with this scheme of government expanded person- and was not to include the one concept upon one vote the invalidation of the constitutional provision giving township representative each one on the board Supreme States; a decision of the Court of the United therefore, Legislature provide representation cannot for on county township boards of commissioners other than from and city except required by Equal districts to the extent Protec- (US Const, tion Clause of the United States Constitution Am XIV; 1, 2, 7, 2, 7; 45.505, 45.514, Const art art § MCL §§ 46.401, 46.404; 5.302[5],5.302[14],5.359[1],5.359[4]). MSA Apportionment — — — — 3. Counties Statutes Guidelines Consti- tutional Law. statutory guidelines apportionment The county for commis- require sioner preserve districts that district lines be drawn to township, village, city, precinct boundary lines consistent range divergence with the goal of allowable from the federal population equality; rigid, exhaustive adherence to the order presented which the criteria are the statute so as to necessary prior render satisfaction of proceed- one criterion (US ing required Const, XIV; to the next is not Am MCL 46.404; 5.359[4]). MSA

Opinion by Moody, Jr., Blair J. — Apportionment — Equal 4. Counties Protection. Legislature provide is not bound to for establishment of county preserve commissioner city election districts which township boundary lines; provision requiring the constitutional organized boards of comprised commissioners in counties to be township one member from each is unconstitutional under Equal Clause, the federal provi- Protection and the rest of the (US 7). inseparable Const, XIV; sion is Am Const art Apportionment — — Population — 5. Counties Equality Statutes — Guidelines. guidelines statutory apportionment county for commis- districts, sioner importance, while stated in the order of their applied need require not be so as to absolute mathematical Wayne —1982 op the Court prerequisite among for as a equality the districts criteria; nor the neither the federal the other consideration applica- equality, requires nor was that such constitution state (MCL 5.359[4]). 46.404; Legislature MSA by the tion intended op Appeal — Apportionment — — Standard Review. 6. Counties reviewing Appeals applied by the Court to be The standard plan apportionment not be whether should guidelines, but whether adopted meets the best good-faith effort on the an honest demonstrates comply commission part 5.3B9[6]). (MCL46.404, 46.406; 5.359[4], MSA guidelines County: Plakas, A. Jurci- P.C. Dale Bokos, & Jones (by sin), Barns. Justine petitioner for Jr.), Carmody, Borgelt, Patrick P.C.

&Rock (by Bishop. Donald petitioner for Hultgren, Coun- Corporation William Dearborn Reilly. B. sel, John petitioner Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, L. William Atkins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Don W. Commission. County Apportionment Wayne for Ingham County: Boughton, McIntyre & Brake,

Sinas, Dramis, Spencer Reisig) Reisig, E. L. Donald P.C. and (by Abraham, Schoneman. petitioner for Jane A. Stoker, Peter Cohl Cohl, P.C. Salstrom & (by Salstrom), Larry A. Appor- Ingham County Commission. tionment concerns presented The question

Per Curiam. of commission- boards county ers. approve declined Appeals

The Court of 224 Mich Opinion op the Court County plan Wayne apportionment Wayne and remanded to the ground

commission on the "good-faith had failed to make a effort to achieve equal population”. districts of The Court also de- approve Ingham County plan clined to an Ingham apportionment remanded to the sion on the commis- ground that "once mathematical exact- subsidiary achieved”, ness in guidelines apply and the plan commis- "mathematically sion had selected a subsidiary guidelines” violated the "more than plans other before the commission”. judgments Appeals

We affirm the of the Court of remanding Ingham apportion- to the drawing plans ment commissions for the conformity quirements. statutory with constitutional and re- agree not, however,

We do with the reasoning Appeals. of the Court of apportionment plan

An for a board of preserve city commissioners must both and town- ship boundary lines and be drawn in accordance (1966 293)1 statutory with other criteria PA violating the extent this can be done without Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution as elucidated in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

I 7) (article provides The 1963 Constitution § for organized county the establishment in each of supervisors, board of now the board of commission "consisting ers, orga of one member from each township representation nized and such from cities provided by law”.2 46.401, 46.404; 5.359(1), 5.359(4); 45.505, 45.514; MCL MSA MCL 5.302(14). 5.302(5), MSA See fns for text. supervisors "A board organized of shall be established in each County —1982 Opinion op the Court (article 2) 7, for provides The constitution also § a establishment, approval majority the of with the electorate, of charter counties "with county’s of a general provided by to be and limitations powers organiza- law”, permit the may and that such "law in form different from government of county tion this set forth in constitution”.3 approved have a Wayne County The voters of 1, effective on January which becomes charter apportion- the considered whether 1983. We have the governed provi- by is Wayne County ment 7) (article 7, concerning the constitution sion § provision authorizing or the generally by counties 2) (article 7, counties and whether charter 261) (Act or one statute general apportionment (Act 293) applies. concerning charter counties Our of board of conclusion gener- for counties commissioner election districts governed by counties is essen- and for charter ally will mean that ordinarily same criteria tially township county consisting organized from each and of one member representation provided cities Const art such from law.” §7. frame, county “Any county may adopt, repeal or a charter amend powers provided by in manner to be a limitations law, general things among provide which shall other for election permit organization may a charter commission. law county government constitution and shall limit from forth in this in form different that set property rate of ad taxation valorem county purposes, powers to for borrow granted limitations and restrict of charter counties money county hereby and contract Each charter debts. power levy county purposes subject to to other taxes prohibitions or law. set forth this constitution law, county through Subject regularly county may its a charter authorize the adopt authority constituted resolutions and ordinances relating to its concerns. majority may, supervisors by members "The board of vote of its shall, upon petition percent place upon the five electors question electing a charter. ballot a commission frame repealed adopted, or until “No charter shall be amended voting question.” approved majority of electors on the Const 1963, art 2.§ 413 224

234 Mich Opinion of the Court 2 whether 7 or of article 7 of the constitution § § 293 applies or Act 261 or Act is not determinative.

A Clerk, In Brouwer v Kent 616, 377 Mich 659; (1966), 141 NW2d 98 an equally divided Court affirmed a decision of the circuit court declaring 7, article 7 violative of the Equal Protection § Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lead 7, opinion said "that 7 article is invalid because it requires every township represented to be on its board of county’s] supervisors by one member [the one only regardless of the township”. prescribe The Court did not a remedy. Jurisdiction was A legislative retained.4 solution was awaited.

Three months after Brouwer was decided, Act 261 was provides enacted.5 Act 261 appor- tionment of county boards of commissioners by the establishment of commissioner districts "as nearly of equal population practicable”.6 as is Act 261 4 (377 reporter’s opinions 621), note to the Justices Mich describing action, proceedings the nature of the in the trial court Court, disposition by by and the divided equally this states: "Affirmed an court, jurisdiction by Supreme but with retained Court.” reporter’s "April note also states the case was decided 6, supplemental 1966”. A memorandum was filed one of the April Justices on 6. 5Legislation addressing subject April matter was introduced on 14, passed 1965. A bill had the House before Brouwer was decided. An approved amended Senate bill was and returned to the House on April 1966, shortly April after Brouwer was decided on 5 and 1966. approved 12, 1966, July PA 261 was on but without immediate effect. It became effective on March 1967. county apportionment county "[T]he commission in each of this apportion county state shall county into less than nor more than 35 nearly equal population commissioner districts as is practicable 46.401; and within the limitations of section 2.” MCL 5.359(1).(As 137.) MSA amended 1969 PA Wayne County Apportionment —1982 Opinion of the Court provides further for the establishment of a n7 apportionment commissio and that such a com governed by following guide mission "shall be importance:” in the order lines stated (a) single all districts shall be member districts equal population practicable”; nearly "as as is (b) "contiguous”;

(c) "compact nearly square shape and of as as is (cid:127) practicable”;

(d) townships shall not be combined with cities (e) (f) townships, villages unless, and and cities and precincts "necessary” unless, shall not be divided population standard”; "to meet the (g) residents of state institutions who cannot drawing districts; vote are to be excluded (h) parti- districts "shall not be drawn to effect political advantage”.8 san tion, except of the United States official census shall be used in this determina-

guidelines total county apportionment equal population meet the 21 for a and 25 to 35 for a 600,000. used to make such division. United States census and the United States figures. adequate furnish the latest official ment days ^[7] Section 2 “(a) MCL "In population may commissions forthwith after All districts shall be apportioning MCL county 46.403; for the population in the stated order of publication provides that in cases 46.402; (like MSA as is purposes for the be Ingham) MSA standard, 5.359(3). county practicable. commission shall be used if requiring published figures 5.359(2). county subsequent of this act. The single-member number upon Other with a (like taken importance: an actual this act The latest official into commissioner division of official census units to Wayne) governmental population subsequent commissioners; United States official census taking population governed by districts and as to the with a secretary census effect, to the last decennial 50,001 county apportion- census published figures population figures count not more than of state shall and within districts, figures nearly following 600,000, may are not over be Mich 224 op the Court enacted, 261 was after Act days A few 293) (Act enacted. act was enabling county charter not provide but does Act parallels Act by guide- governed shall be that Act 293 importance”. "order of with a stated lines township shall be city each provides largest possible "the so that has apportioned its boundaries districts within complete number of township is city joined” or any part of before single- all districts shall be territory, other population practi- equal districts "as member cable”, nearly square and as contiguous, "compact be and "shall drawn shape practicable”, as is advantage”, regard partisan political without villages, precincts cities and "[tjownships, to meet necessary if only shall be divided population standard”.9 may States census entered into with United "A contract any special if the latest United States decen- to make census

bureau figures adequate. are not nial census "(b) contiguous, All districts shall be "(c) square shape compact nearly of as All districts shall be as geography practicable, depending area on the as is involved. "(d) any city township part or thereof shall be combined with No or district, part meet the single such combination is needed to thereof for a unless standard. "(e) Townships, villages only necessary if and cities shall be divided population to meet the standard. "(f) popula- only necessary Precincts shall be divided if to meet tion standard. register "(g) by law Residents of state institutions who cannot county any the representation. as shall be excluded from consideration electors "(h) partisan political Districts shall not be drawn to effect advan- 5.359(4). tage.” 46.404; MCL MSA foregoing by 1969 PA 137. The 9 reflects amendments made adopted provisions county this act "Sec. 14. A charter under the provide following: shall for all of the * * * "(b) partisan provide also for the election of charter shall legislative body single member districts to be members from county apportionment as created in established commission County —1982 Court

B Brouwer, it was un- this Court decided When Sims, 533; 377 US 84 S v Reynolds whether clear guidelines pursuant 5 and to the standards and established in section (8) (7), 5(2), (4), (5), (6), reapportionment upon based section the last general and census, regular official federal decennial effective at the first occurring legislative body of the election of the members completion 12 months after the and certification of the less than federal census. Each has the city township apportioned so that it and shall be largest possible complete number of districts within its township joined any part city of the or is boundaries before territory city township or to form a outside the boundaries of 5.302(14). 45.514; MCL MSA district.” * * * "Sec. 5. "(2) commission, county apportionment days within 30 after commissioners, county adoption of the resolution board of the shall establish charter commission charter commissioners to be elected. All districts shall be member districts official used in this official census units to meet equal districts to the number of single equal population practicable. and as The latest as figures published of the United States official census shall be determination, except requiring that in a division of cases standard, population an actual govern- population may count be used to make the division. Other figures population may of total be used if taken mental census after the last decennial United States census the United States census figures adequate purposes secretary are not for the of this act. The published figures county state shall furnish the latest official to the days publication within 15 commission after of subse- quent figures. may United States official census A contract be entered special into with the United States census bureau to conduct a census figures adequate. if the latest United States decennial census Each district shall be shape are not contiguous, compact, square nearly as practicable, depending geography as is on the of the involved, regard partisan political area advantage. and shall be drawn without city township apportioned Each shall be so that largest possible complete shall have the boundaries before territory district. number of districts within its any part township city joined of the or city township outside to form the boundaries of the or cities, Townships, villages, precincts only shall be divided necessary if to meet the standard. "(5) registered Any county, days after the voter of the within 30 filing appeals requirements appeals may provided plan county, may petition court of for his or her to review the to determine if the meets finding of the laws of this state. A be of the court of appealed supreme to the court of this state 5.302(5). 45.505; by law.” MCL MSA 5(4) apportionment plan; Section concerns effective date an 224 413 Mich

238 Opinion of the Court (1964), 1362; requiring 12 L Ed 2d 506 that Ct substantially equal districts be legislative state extended to subordinate units population, would be Indeed, government. was that uncer- of state Reynolds the reach of which had regarding tainty this Court in Brouwer. divided enacted, After Act 261 was this Court was called opinion regarding for an the consti- upon advisory that act. A tutionality majority Justices responded by signing advisory opinion first an 7, and, therefore, stating that article "is valid § 1966, 261 is not”. Advisory Opinion re PA No 1966, 261, of PA No Constitutionality 379 Mich (1967).10 65; 149 NW2d later, A year Supreme the United States Court v Avery County, Midland decided 390 US 485- 486; 1114; (1968), L S Ct 20 Ed 2d 45 which held the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution requires gen- "that units with governmental eral powers over an entire geo- graphic area not apportioned among single- unequal member districts of substantially popula- tion”. later,

A month the 1967 advisory opinion was "recalled” and six of the eight justices signed another opinion that Act 261 "is advisory stating valid, section 7 of notwithstanding. article 7 For 5(6) permits any registered apportion- voter to submit a if the § 5(7) plan; ment commission fails to submit a states that a apportionment plan becomes the official for the remains 5(8) census; effect until the next United States official decennial and § provides that the electors of each district shall elect one commis- sioner. statutory provisions quoted above reflect amendments made 1980 PA 7. April Decided 1967. Wayne County —1982 Opinion of the Court Avery has lifted section 7 out of our just Constitu- tion, of article 7 leaving rest intact with the free legislature implement left the same if 7 appeared manner no section had ever re of Advisory Constitutionality therein.” 1966, 261, PA No 736, 740; 380 Mich 158 NW2d (1968).11 497

C 1968, In the Court of Appeals, its first county opinions, set the tone for subse- quent adjudication emphasized Court. It achieving equal "districts of substantially popula- tion” regard without to the other statutory crite- ria.12 11 reconsideration”, advisory opinion, "upon The substitute was filed 8,May 1968. Appeals The Court of had earlier reached the same conclusion in In Apportionment Ontonagon County Supervisors— re of the Board of (On (1968). 348; Rehearing), App 1967 11 Mich NW2d 698 157 12Apportionment County Supervisors, of Huron Board of 12 Mich 326, App 327; (1968); Apportionment County 163 NW2d 30 of Sanilac (1968). Supervisors, 330, 332; App

Board of 12 Mich 162 NW2d 913 divergence plan largest in the Huron district from the average average was and of the smallest district from the was 8.97% divergence approved plan largest in the Sanilac of 8.54%. district from the the average was and of the smallest district from 2.8% average was 3.62%. Apportionment Allegan County Supervisors— In In re Board of 1968, App 692; (1968), 13 Mich 164 NW2d 665 the Court declared plan largest average invalid a where the district was above the 34.3% average. and the smallest below the The Court also declared 26.6% Muskegon plan Muskegon Apportionment invalid the County (1968); in In re Supervisors 1968, App 697; Board of 13 Mich NW2d — opinion range divergence. does not state the 1968, plans reported opinions. In the Court considered two other Apportionment Supervisors— In In County re of Ottawa Board of 701; (1968), App 13 Mich 164 NW2d 667 held invalid the Court largest average where the district was above 22.4% average. the smallest was below the In In re 17.9% 704; Supervisors 1968, App Washtenaw Board of 13 Mich — (1968), approved largest 164 NW2d 767 the Court where the average district was above the 6.37% and the smallest was 6.74% average. below the 413 Mich Opinion op the Court Appeals again considered

In the Court of argument apportionment. rejected the It justified in order that "variances in to obtain gerrymandering, are compact square-shaped districts, avoid splitting precincts,

avoid political subdivisions” and to avoid the division of in in Act set forth accordance with the criteria Apportionment Muskegon County Board of 261. App 156, 159; 178 NW2d 23 Mich Comm’rs — (1970).13 concluding, Appeals relied on In so the Court of a 1968 declared that decision of that Court which justify the other criteria "not districts would Appor substantially unequal population”. In re Supervisors Allegan County tionment Board of App 692, —1968, 695; 13 164 NW2d 665 Mich (1968). requirement had The Court said that this Supreme been "reinforced” the United States Kirkpatrick Preisler, 526, 530; 394 Court in 89 S Ct v US (1969),

1225; 519 22 L Ed 2d where drawing that in districts for the House Court said practicable’ Representatives nearly of standard effort to achieve Since quirement "the 'as requires good-faith that the State make a

precise equality”. mathematical "imposes Avery the 'one man-one vote’ re county government”, the Court con on Kirkpa requirement in cluded that "the stated congressional apportion to trick v Preisler relative applicable equally ment is as in this case”. "Laudable may gerrymandering to be the efforts avoid fragmenting political subdivisions, the have been these too Supreme

rejected by they if Court 13 12) (see Court, again addressing fn The range County, disapproved plan Muskegon a with a of diver 24.2% largest underrepresented gence; district was and the small 10.8% Muskegon overrepresented. Apportionment County est was 13.4% 156, 1970, 158; App 178 154 23 Mich NW2d Board of Comm’rs — (1970). County 241 —1982 Opinion op the Court equal population.” App Mich are used to avoid 160.14 Appeals again the Court of addressed

In Appor In apportionment. question Board of County tionment of Ionia Comm’rs — 676, 683; (1972),15 NW2d App 39 Mich Court, ground on the rejecting plan unconstitu divergence clearly was population Kirkpatrick, tional, Avery among referred to concerning congressional decisions district other not, however, refer any The Court did make ing. of the United States Supreme ence to a decision concerning county apportionment decided Court Allegan County Muskegon County. after both The Court relied on Justice Brennan’s statement the Court Preisler, decision, Kirkpatrick supra, again, v which concerned con districting. gressional however, Appeals say, population The Court of did that some permissible. adopt It numerical variance would be declined to fixed percentage population stating or considered on its own merits”. variance "that each must be stated, however, guidance It for the any plan those concerned "that which contains a variance ratio constitutionality.” excess of 1:1.10 is of doubtful It added a caveat say any plan may than the the that "this is not have less review, Upon automatically approved. above-stated ratio will be drafters of a demonstrate a required justify are all variances and Ap good-faith population equality”. effort achieve portionment Muskegon supra, Board of Comm’rs — 160-162. divergence average largest district from the was 14.7% "patently and of the smallest unconstitutional of plans was Court said that this was 16.1%. by any the number standard”. The Court discussed political split subdivisions left intact and under the alternative good and said that none are in demonstrate "that the drafters trying population equality. contrary by faith to achieve On the publicly sanctifying political the boundaries of the 19 subdivisions refusing techniques and to utilize census units and other mandated statute, good the drafters have demonstrated their lack of faith.” 1972, Apportionment County 39 Mich of Ionia Board of Comm’rs — (1972). 676, 682; App 198 NW2d 2 legislation early The Court had said that aim of the central "[t]he equal protection to insure that thé ment clause of the Fourteenth Amend- applied to United States Constitution is to the election county App boards of commissioners”. 39 Mich 678. [May-

242 224 413 Mich Opinion op the Court Mundt, 1904; 29 Abate v 182; In S Ct 403 US 91 (1971), Supreme L Ed 2d 399 States the United plan Court had a upheld county apportionment lines boundary with districts to the corresponding of the the result county’s five towns with there was in one town overrepresentation of 4.8% in another —a underrepresentation of 7.1% range divergence of 11.9%. Abate in ignored

The Court of also Appeals original subsequent opinions disapproving 1972 approving County Oakland the Kent County said, to the plan.16 The Court reference "[w]ith subdivisions, argument on the violation of political its Ionia in opinion long this Court has amassed line of in an to drive home the authority attempt point to drafters commissioners’ dis designed represent political tricts should not be subdivisions, represent people”. Apportion but 1972, County ment of Oakland Board of Comm’rs — 493, 502-503, 504; 40 Mich 199 NW2d 234 App (1972). Although Apportion the Oakland County divergence ment Commission had reduced the district, 12 persons per adopting 10 to its action as de minimis figure an "arbitrary” district) (100 persons per "negates everpresent 16 1972, Apportionment County Board of 40 Oakland Comm’rs — 493; (1972); App Apportionment County Mich 199 NW2d 234 of Kent (1972). 1972, 508; App Board of 40 Mich 198 NW2d 915 Comm’rs — divergence ultimately adopted plan. The Kent Oakland a zero divergence plan. was a zero Apportionment County In Buren Board of Van Comm’rs — (1972) 658; App disapproved 39 Mich 198 NW2d the Court divergence largest of the with a of the district smallest 4.49% disapproved Lapeer County plan district of It also 3.47%. Lapeer County Board of Mich Comm’rs — (1972), 666; figures App United States census 198 NW2d because plan Apportionment approved County It were not used. the Cass 671; App 39 Mich Cass Board of NW2d Comm’rs — (1972), divergence largest where the district was 0.48% of the smallest was 0.66%. Apportionment —1982 243 County Opinion op the Court possibility achieving constitutional and mathe- doing, matical exactness. In so it demonstrates the good-faith lack of a eifort.” again noteworthy

It is the "amassed au- thority” any in Ionia did not include reference to Appeals Abate. The failure the Court in the Muskegon County appor- Ionia, 1972 and Oakland suggests tionment decisions to advert that to Abate analysis Appeals of the Court of was incomplete. The still later 1973 decision of the Supreme United States 410 US Howell, Court Mahan v (1973), 315; 979; 93 S Ct 35 L Ed 2d 320 limiting Kirkpatrick congressional districting,17 suggests Appeals the Court reliance, Muskegon County, Kirkpa- Ionia, and Oakland on reinforcing trick as its earlier construction in Alle- gan County phrase nearly equal of the "as practicable” as is was incorrect. February year, Appeals In of this the Court of (but again confronted Mahan did not advert Abate) County and declared that in the 1972 Ionia applying decision it "was not Fourteenth Amendment” but rather was "inter- preting attempted codify a state statute which principle and enforce the constitutional of one person, county one vote on boards of commission- previous opinions ers”. It concluded that "the interpretation this Court on the binding statute are still valid and county apportionment Ap- on commissions”. portionment of Delta Board of Comm’rs— 17 Legislature 1982, See In re of State 413 Mich — 120; (1982), Howell, discussing 321 NW2d 573 Mahan v where the Supreme constitutionality United States Court said that the of a state legislative redistricting plan judged by was "not to be the more stringent” Kirkpatrick concerning standard of and other cases con gressional reapportionment. 413 Mich Court 181; Mich NW2d App

(1982).18

D Abate, supra, county a approving In of range divergence a of apportionment plan with lines, the United boundary town preserve 11.9% County said that "Rockland Court Supreme States recognized advantages the of long has [New York] the occupy governing the same individuals having towns”. the and its positions of both (the also, supervisors In of Michigan, boards commissioners) of were of the boards predecessor township the composed supervisors. of originally history has similar Rockland Michigan shifts population required County that "[w]hen greater portion that towns receive a of seats some Legislature re- on the county legislature”, the "malap- that sponded with a statute reduced the scheme, Michigan like portionment”.19 The scheme, township County required Rockland supervisor, encourage mayor tended Appeals An examination of 20 orders issued the Court of over cases on in 1982 an lation proved indicates that Court has insisted adopting popu with least commission from ap divergence equality, no be absolute that will population exceeding that with a 1:1.10 and variance ratio population the precedence preservation equality always over must take boundary political lines of local subdivisions. approved plan having popula- Marquette The Court a maximum persons, Bay, Joseph, Barry tion deviation of 112 St. Mecosta and plans corresponding figures 53 and 46. Seven less, plans approved other deviation were zero were 21 or and three these plans. said, Supreme It United said could as the States Court County, Michigan "substantially remedie[d] Rockland statute Clerk, malapportionment”. the 616, v 377 Mich See Brouwer Kent (1966). ff; 141 NW2d 98 County Apportionment —1982 Opinion op the Court cities, other of larger officials "to serve on the county board”.20

Abate was written two Mahan v before years Mahan, Howell. In where election district lines had been drawn along county and city boundary lines,21 the United States Supreme Court ruled legislative apportionment, state appor- limits, tioning body may, within depart from the goal population equality to achieve other ra- tional, legitimate state goals such as preserving integrity political subdivisions of the state.22

II Ingham Both the and Wayne County Apportion- ment Commissions sought to achieve zero or sub- zero stantially plans. deviation The Court of Appeals nevertheless ruled that the plan adopted the by Apportion- ment Commission was void as violative of Act 261. It said that a lack good-faith of effort to achieve 20 32, infra, accompanying See fn text. Howell, supra, Mahan v 319. suppose There is no reason to that Mahan establishes a rule legislative apportionment. persuaded restricted to same We are that the rational, legitimate goals justify departure state will from exact population equality county apportionment. Abate, In legislative the Court had observed that "local bodies frequently representatives have fewer than do their state and na- That, counterparts”. together tional relatively popula- with the small comparison congressional tion of their districts in with and state legislative districts, "support argument slightly lends to the that greater percentage may government deviations be tolerable for local (Emphasis supplied.) schemes”. 403 US 185. Gaffney Cummings, 735; In 2321; v 412 US 93 S Ct 37 L Ed 2d 298 (1973), Supreme the divergences United States Court held that equality from plan challenged legislative apportionment absolute in the require any justification were de minimis and did not at all. One underrepresented district overrep- was and another 3.93% was 3.9% range divergence resented for a total of 7.83%. 413 Mich Opinion of the Court by equal population evi was shown

districts dence "[mjathematical never exactness was goal primary commission”, the commis the sion had inviolability political "placed subdi precincts23 out-county election before vision "[a] shown re and had mathematical exactness” luctance removing split tracts blocks census achieve mathematical exact district to to another apportion was remanded to ness”. The cause ment commission new adopt a with instructions provisions 261. of Act accordance Appeals Ingham County, held In the Court of Ingham’s apportionment plan adopted by that the commission meet the it too had failed to was void because requirements Ingham Act 261. All the plans The Court said had achieved zero deviation. that is achieved” the must commission was ment commission exactness "once mathematical subsidiary criteria of Act plan adopted by observed and that apportion- invalid because had selected subsidiary guide- "mathematically violated plans more other that had been sub- lines” than mitted. appeal granted

This Court leave to and ordered briefing argument and, oral immediate argument, after briefing ap- on

additional whether portionment Wayne County, which becomes governed January 1, 1983, charter on was by § 2 or 7 of article 7 constitution Act 293 or Act 261.

A petitioners Wayne County are citizens pre regarding preservation no of Detroit There was issue they being appeared without cincts because it regard were redrawn county apportionment. —1982 247 Wayne Opinion of the Court Heights, They Dearborn, Dearborn and Westland. plan preferable contend that the so-called staff Holley plan, plan adopted by to the which was the Wayne range commission. The divergence plan under the staff was and 0.48% Holley under the 0.3%. plans up

Under both six districts are made entirely of Detroit and two districts are over- whelmingly Detroit districts.24 plan:

Under the staff (a) (90,660) 72,597 of Dearborn is combined with Park, Melvindale, 35,931 Allen and of Detroit to remaining district; 17,063 form a of Dearborn Heights (67,706), is combined with Dearborn Gar- City, den and Inkster to form a district.

(b) Westland is 49,742 combined with (approximately of Livonia one-half of Livonia’s 104,814) remaining district; to form a 55,072 Township Livonia is combined with Redford 42,223 of Detroit to form a district. plan: Holley

Under the (a) (67,706) Heights 23,480 of Dearborn is com- Township bined with 74,010 Redford of Detroit Heights, to form district; 20,684 of Dearborn City, 64,447 Westland, Garden and Inkster are remaining combined district; to form a 23,542 The staff predominantly includes the Grosse Pointes Harper Detroit district and predominantly Woods in another Detroit Holley plan district. The a includes both the Pointes and the Woods in single predominantly plans Detroit district. Under both Hamtramck Highland single predominantly Park are in a Detroit district. 413 Mich op the Court Heights, Dearborn, and 54,603 of Dearborn

Taylor a district. to form are combined (84,603)

(b) with is combined 2,287 of Westland Plym- Township, City and Livonia, and Northville Township 17,869 City district; to form outh Sumpter, Huron and combined with is of Westland Townships, Belleville, and Romulus Burén Van remaining (repeating) 64,- a district form 20,684 of Dear- with combined 447 Westland is City, Heights, to form a and Inkster Garden born district. plan, vote in all- more Detroiters

Under the staff among commu- Livonia alone districts. Detroit kept intact, a dis- would, dominate if nities plan. split the staff under trict is approximately plan, Holley 1/3 of Under (67,706) Heights three in each of is Dearborn (90,660) split approximately is districts; Dearborn district; in another and 1/3 in one district 2/3 split approximately district, in one is 3% Westland another, in a third.25 and the balance 20%

B proponent Ingham County petitioner is a The proposed Republican plan commis- Ingham Com- sioners. 1,004 Holley plan, split Southgate. plans Under Both 31,054 the staff Southgate Under in one district and in another. is 1,621 30,437 plan, Southgate is in another. in one district and is part 4,604 Rouge persons of River combines staff 8,308, Rouge, of River a district. The remainder Detroit combined with to form Riverview, Ecorse, Park, Wyandotte, Grosse Lincoln Holley 30,437 Southgate Township, a district. The to form lie (12,912) Rouge in a district that does River includes all of any include of Detroit. Wayne County Apportionment —1982 Opinion of the Court adopted mission one of the plans proffered three Democratic up commissioners who made a 3 to majority commission. The three Democratic and one Republican plan were, together with plans other that had been considered, all zero population plans. deviation

It is contended that Republican plan is (i) superior because the plan which was adopted combines townships seven cities addition townships the nine that are so combined under (ii) plans, divides, both in addition to the two townships and two cities divided under both plans, one additional township and one additional city.

Ill While article of the Michigan Constitu- § tion, insofar as it allots to each township one and one member only of the board of commissioners regard without to population, is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend- ment, the concept there set forth that the board shall composed of representatives of townships and cities per is not se violative of the Fourteenth Amendment26 and is a Michigan constitutional goal valid under the United States Constitution.27

A The declaration in the lead Brouwer opinion that article 7 is violative of Equal Protec- tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not 26 B, Part See infra. See Abate v Mahan v Mundt, supra; Howell, supra; Reynolds v supra, Sims, (semble). 413 Mich Court binding not

precedentially was because Brouwer majority this Court.28 decision of opinion precedentially advisory is not prece- opinions advisory binding are because dent.29

B appears constitution embodies a that It city representation township and "scheme supervisors”. v Kent Brouwer boards of supra, County Clerk, 377 Mich 655. There were (i) parts districts that scheme: two represented to. (ii) townships cities, and would be persons the board would constitute that the supervisors who ordinarily be those who had

would townships supervisors as been elected officials of nated or city government desig- or who would be appointed by those who had been elected. concept the board of commissioners townships representatives consist of should cities goes back at least to the Constitution of provided supervisors, "[a] 1850. It that board of consisting township, organized of from each one county”. 1850, shall be established each Const recognition growth apparent 10, § 6. In art of retaining cities, Constitution, the lan- 1908 quoted, guage just "[cjities that shall have added 28 Estate, 334, 336; NW2d 220 174 NW2d 836 See In re Curzenski 384 Mich 183 (1971); Co, 251, 278; v Breckon Franklin Fuel 383 Mich (1970); Groening 135, 140; McCambridge, v 282 275 NW 795 Mich 105, (1976); (1937); Negri Slotkin, 109; v 98 see 397 Mich 244 NW2d 2d, Courts, 189, generally p 20 Am Jur 524. § 29 Advisory Opinion See statements of re Constitu the Justices (1973); 294, 441; tionality 1972 PA Mich 469 389 208 NW2d Advisory Opinion Constitutionality (Questions 2- on of 1975 PA 227 10), 2d, Courts, 465, (1976); 477; generally 20 Am Jur 396 Mich 242 NW2d 3 see 189, p 524. § County 251 —1982 Opinion of the Court on representation” supervisors such the board of may provided as law. Const art 7. by § provision repeated That was in the 1963 Constitu- tion.30 constituted, originally

As all the members of the of supervisors board were ex they were officio — of the not they members board because had been people elected as of the but members board had they because been elected as people township supervisors. concept board should be composed political heads the constituent subdivi- county implemented

sions was in the "provi- sion of law” adopted after 1908 regarding repre- cities; sentation from while was left to the cities to decide in their city represen- charters whether on of supervisors tatives the board ap- would be elected, pointed or it seems to have generally been provided in the charters or other mayor elected or persons designated officials by the city council, commission or along sometimes with per- sons elected large, at would be the represen- cities’ tatives.31

Thus, contemplated originally and consti- tuted, only does the speak constitution representation from cities, townships and but 30 fn 2. See 117.27; 5.2106; (home-rule See 1948 CL MSA PA cities act). 27) (§ repealed by This section was 1966 PA 261. See v Brouwer County Clerk, (1966) 623; Kent 377 Mich 141 NW2d for text description provisions of the charter of Kent composition cities which reflect the character of its board of supervisors, typical supervisors which we understand was of boards of generally. representation governed by of fourth-class was cities 1948 CL 87.26; 5.1683, provided supervisor MSA that each ward would supervisors. sit on the board of Mich Opinion of the Court

persons were of board members who became speak expected generally persons to could be who political subdi- of the constituent for the concerns county gov- apparent for a rationale The visions. representatives largely composed ernment political subdivisions, than rather the constituent people, persons directly no- is the elected expenditure regarding the that decisions tion county a effect on such substantial revenue have and revenue needs of the level of service political most that those subdivisions constituent likely respon- charged to be aware of meeting sibility those needs should have voice resources are allocated. how provided, since The statute has nevertheless provide city for the charters could representatives city’s to the board election of supervisors, representatives That were elected. given ap- legislation constitutional was effect provision proval was when 1908 constitutional Constitution, the 1963 follow- carried forward into ing of various debate and consideration extensive constituting the board of alternative methods supervisors.32 appear It does that the therefore representatives concept on the board political of the constituent would be the heads has the status of a constitutional subdivisions (except requirement. Legislature free as was townships) provide for direct election supervisors, people members of board commissioners, it has done in now board of Acts 261 and 293. Legislature free, not, however, under was provide Constitution,

the 1963 for the establish- Record, pp Convention 942-952. Official Constitutional Wayne County —1982 Opinion of the Court ment of having boundary election districts lines that do not follow the lines of boundary townships cities.

C The under invalidity the federal constitution provision representative the for one on the board (article 7) supervisors township from each poses question the whether the constitutional township representation "scheme of and city in county boards” is severable. here, In re Ap invalidity contrast

portionment of Legislature 1982, State 413 Mich — (1982), 136; 321 not go NW2d does "to the political process”. heart of provision the here legislative involved does concern apportion ment, but apportionment for the county board of legislative commissioners. concern the Our state apportionment that the Court not arrogate case to itself "a decision the people should make” in the requires instant case that the Court enforce the decision which the people have made. To hold the Legislature free to abandon the scheme township city representation in county boards Legislature would be to relieve the of a limitation on its power which has existed since 1850. In legislative case, the state the fundamental question presented was whether the power apportion Legislature, which had been increasingly Legislature withdrawn from the until it was withdrawn from totally Legisla ture and commission, vested in an apportionment should, light of the invalidity declared this Court, Legislature. be returned to the

If the Court were to power have held that 413 Mich Opinion of the Court any Legislature without limitation

returned to exercised, it would in which it was manner on the Legislature power which had restored to have people would done and it have been denied again people. of the Here we a vote so without Legisla- power a limitation on consider power provide for the To hold that ture. boards of commission- Legislature without constitu- returns to the ers power do would be to limitation on tional precisely legislative apportionment in the the Court refused do what paradoxi- Thus, case. township cally, of that the scheme a decision city representation is in boards severable perceived value which the Court the same enforces (al- legislative case state in the though provisions that the Court there held the severable) enlarging of not were not there involved Legislature power without a of the the vote the people. of the that the It re-enforces same value also insisting, although perceived it had de- Court legislative and the the rules clared severable, that the criteria which commission had evolved over tory years his- constitutional people until the declare whether be enforced power apportion Legislature the should be the to Legislature limitation or returned the without by or other limita- be allocated or restricted those tions. Legislature by holding is

In limited that the township city repre- constitutional scheme implement precept sentation, we that writ- gov- only an ten constitution is not allocation power exercise, its but a limitation on ernmental and, power instance, on the in this a limitation Legislature. open to It is not this Court power Legislature its relieve the of limitations on Wayne County —1982 Opinion of the Court required implement what is beyond limitations on set power state forth in the United States Constitution. Legislature

We therefore hold that cannot provide representation on the board of commis- sioners other than from townships and cities ex- to the cept required by Equal extent Protec- tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as elu- Supreme cidated United States Court. Equal We have considered whether Protec- Michigan tion Clause Constitution33 embod- vote, the concept person-one ies of one modifying person-one article 7. The one concept vote § clearly inconsistent with the scheme embodied article 7. The supervisor of each township, regard without to the population of the township, towas be a member of the supervisors. board of In that light circumstance and also in the rejection framers of the 1963 Constitution propos- als for substituting alternative methods for establishment board more consistent with the one person-one concept34 vote is clear the framers of the constitution people, and the it, approving contemplate did not the one person-one concept implemented vote be would the of establishment the board.

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of this state’s constitution cannot be properly en- larged to incorporate concept clearly at odds provisions other of this state’s constitution. partial The invalidity or invalidity of those other provisions under the federal constitution does not

33 1, 2. Article 34 supra. See fn 32 [May- Mich 224 of Court Equal original scope

change of this state’s Clause. Protection

IV requirements Separate apart from the Michigan Constitution, Act 261 7, § 7 article counties) (for requires other than charter counties counties) (for requires that charter Act 293 and county be drawn to district lines commissioner township city preserve lines. requires that this Amendment

The Fourteenth principle the federal the least cost to be done with equality between election districts preservation city maximum with the consistent and range exceeding township and without lines divergence under federal of allowable which, United Su- until States constitution preme otherwise, deemed shall be Court declares range approved in Abate 11.9% be 105.95%). (94.05% to

A essentially 293 state the same Both Acts 261 and drawing lines of election district criteria for the IA, Part for the of commissioners.35 See board Act 293 rules of We have considered whether the (charter counties) (counties appor govern generally) or Act 261 Wayne County, adopted a charter that does tionment of not become which has January 1, fully eifective until 1983. large (population provides Act in a as 600,000) be 25 35. over the number of commissioners shall appor- provides Wayne County charter commissioners and provides for 15 commissioner districts. tionment submitted only authority comprised 15 commissioners for a board very authority of Act in the subsection Act 293 which and that is set forth Having provides invoked that subsec- rules. 15, Wayne 25 to to reduce of commissioners from tion the number provisions remaining of that cannot heard to assert County Wayne —1982 Opinion op the Court supra, description for of the summary statutory , and footnotes 9 for text language provisions. the statutory

Both require single-member, contiguous acts dis- tricts nearly equal population as is practica- ble compact square and as and as nearly shape as is practicable, depending on the geography. (charter counties)

Act 293 states that city each township shall it apportioned so that has possible "the number largest complete districts part within its boundaries” before any city or is township joined with other and that territory, villages, townships, precincts cities and shall be only, divided if necessary, to meet the population standard.

Act concept 261 states a expressed in Act 293: no township part or thereof shall be combined with any city village or unless combination needed meet to But standard. Act 261 similarly townships, villages, states cities and even precincts shall be divided if neces- only, to sary, meet the population standard. provide

Both acts that district lines shall not be can, therefore, subsection were not also invoked and that continue apportion according provides to a statute that for a minimum of 25 commissioners. Further, adopts by that subsection refers to and reference the provisions provisions providing commission, of Act 293 for a charter necessarily establishing were invoked in com- the charter mission County. Legislature clearly contemplated appli- that Act would be cable, firstly commission, establishing extent of a charter secondly establishing districts, to the extent of commission before the charter of fully a charter would become effective. essentially Since the rules under acts the the both are same, apportionment likely significant it is not make difference whether applica- rules of one statute or are held another to be ble. 413 Mich op the Court advantage. political partisan Act effect drawn to provides institu- of state that residents 261 alone considered in not be cannot vote shall tions who drawing district lines.

B county appor- providing that "the Act governed by the be shall commission tionment following guidelines impor- in the stated order concept set forth in Act 293. tance”, not states a (a) population equality of as is order The stated (b) (c) contiguity; compact practicable; nearly as is (d, practicable; shape nearly square as as and e, f) townships joining cities and not not precincts dividing townships, villages, cities or necessary standard; to meet the unless (g) counting institutions who of state residents (h) lines not vote; that the district be cannot advantage. partisan political to effect drawn compli- requires exhaustive If the stated order turning to a suc- with each criterion before ance (a) (c) through ceeding criterion, then criteria (d) and criteria alone would determinative be (f) given through any could not effect. be ways in which an endless number of There are lines consistent could construct the district one with (a), population, equality and crite- criterion (c) (b), requires contiguity. all rion Criterion nearly square compact as districts shall geog- shape depending practicable, on the as is literally county raphy Read area involved. given priority, that criterion an absolute require be drawn lines would district pre- village, city regard township, or without Wayne County —1982 Court county would lines. The cinct mechanical task. be a say, commissioners, all were, sixteen

If there done, could be or indeed need to be that would county apportion be to find the done, population would four and to create center of the popu- quadrant quadrants, find the and in each quadrants. more to create four lation center and Although exactly quadrant not be of each would exactly size, have the same the same each would single- people. All districts would be number of contiguous, clearly the districts member and partisan drawn to effect would not have been political advantage. unlikely, however, It is most any any line would coincide with that township, village, city district precinct or line. reading reject rigid of "stated order” We such a because so read:

(a) unique concept appor- It would introduce a persuaded yet tionment; one which we are has not political acceptance. achieved (b) impose concept It would a generally radically for counties different required counties; do not than think that charter we Legislature rigid intended such generally set of criteria for counties constraint on charter counties. and no such (c) give It no would effect whatsoever to criteria (d) (f) through concerning preservation of town- ship, village precinct city, thereby lines, and and meaningless provisions. duty It make those is our to read the statute as a whole and to avoid a 413 Mich Opinion of the Court meaningless provisions renders

construction clearly to have effect. were (d) viola- criteria would be order of The stated provides Michigan Constitution which tive of the representation township city "scheme (see duty supra). IIIB, It is our Part boards” a declaration to avoid the statute to construe unconstitutionality. C (f) (a). through state Criteria counting (g) goals. of cer- concerns Criterion (h) institutions. Criterion of state tain residents political partisan pursuit advan- that the states goal. tage may not be a (a) (f) (d), (e), together criterion with all districts shall

Criteria population standard: concern preserve single-member drawn to town- districts precinct ship, village, city lines if this can be composing standard done within districts ticable”. prac- equal population nearly as is "as (c) (b) geography and serve concern Criteria gerrymandering. are to be The districts avoid nearly contiguous square shape compact and as of and to be as depending practicable on the as is geography area involved. of the compact stating and

In that the districts shall be goal square practicable, Legislature stated a precedence preserving the over which is take governmental boundary to the units lines of local plans by which extent that there are alternative preserved. boundary Where could be those lines —1982 Opinion of the Court plans there is a choice between alternative both of lines, preserve boundary which such square shape which is more and in is to compact squareness be compactness selected because higher importance. has a stated order of (criterion [c]) Compactness squareness is not in avoiding an end itself but rather a means of It was not gerrymandering. intended criterion (c) implemented to the extent of subor- entirely (e) (f). (d), dinating lines boundary criteria D The meaning phrase equal of the "as nearly population as is practicable” is rooted in the his- tory legislation.

The bill which became Act 261 was introduced 14, 1965, Reynolds v Sims April on the year after litigation was decided. The in culminated this Court’s decision in Brouwer v Kent County Clerk, supra, had been already commenced shortly after Reynolds was decided. Brouwer was argued in 3, 1965, this Court on November and decided April 1966. Act 261 approved was July 1966 and Act 293 July 1966.

It is clear from the history of Act 261 and of the provisions of Act 293 that they designed were to remedy the defect appor- procedures tionment the per- board Brouwer, ceived by the circuit judge who was affirmed an divided evenly Supreme Court case. The defect there perceived was the failure to observe of Reynolds v requirements Sims. 413 Mich Opinion op the Court it had not 293 took form Acts 261 and

When definitively States the United decided been Reynolds Supreme applied Sims would be v Court whether nor was it to board Supreme Court would extent clear to what permit imple- equality divergence from absolute Reynolds that a v Sims the statement ment state integrity "legitimately may desire to maintain political subdivisions, insofar of various compact provide possible, districts as designing legislative contiguous a territories supra, Reynolds Sims, scheme”. v 377 US 578. a in Brouwer

Confronted with determination response legislative before the called for a Supreme clearly defined Court had United States Legislature Reynolds Sims, v the reach of Reynolds exact words of v Sims. chose to use the "[b]y Reynolds Sims, the Court had said that In holding v requisite a federal constitutional that as legislature appor- must of a state both houses population basis, a we mean that tioned on Equal requires State Protection Clause that a good faith effort to construct make an honest legislature, nearly districts, in both houses its practicable. equal population realize as is We arrange legis- practical impossibility that it a is lative so that each one has an identical districts residents, citizens, or or voters. Mathe- number precision hardly worka- matical exactness or is requirement.”36 (Emphasis sup- ble constitutional plied.)_ Sanders, 1, 7-8; language Wesberry This from v 376 US was taken (1964) 526; congressional apportionment

84 S 11 L Ct Ed 2d 481 case where the Court said: that, context, "We hold construed in its historical the command of I, 2, People Representatives 'by Art of the several be chosen nearly practicable man’s vote in a States’ means that as as is one congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” —1982 Opinion of the Court Supreme gave meaning Court The United States exactness or that mathematical to its statement precision hardly re- a workable constitutional is holding, quirement Mahan, that a in Abate and equality permissible divergence from absolute goals drawing district the state of election achieve boundary of local with the lines lines to coincide political subdivisions. history mind, in we conclude that the

With that practi- phrase nearly equal as is "as in what the United States cable” means Supreme essence Legislature says it means. The Court today, recognizing then, even in the that we were development judicial of what foothills equal population nearly "as as is meant practicable” it, left as so often leaves other develop.37 concepts, judiciary to to require We thus conclude that Acts pre- that commissioner district lines be drawn to township, village, city precinct lines to serve exceeding the the extent this can be done without range divergence of allowable under the federal (11.9% [94.05% 105.95%] constitution to until the otherwise) Supreme United States Court declares equal principle at the least cost to the federal population between election districts consistent Legislature law-making power thereby delegated has not its rather, recognition to the courts. It has in that the United States Supreme articulate, authority Court has the to in the construction Constitution, law-making the United States a limitation on the state’s power, stating legislatively than avoided a standard more restrictive Supreme require, simply the United States to the courts the limitation on state would and has left Court development perimeters judicial of the exact of this power. Legislature delegate did not discretion, power legislative in courts the but rather an exercise legislative judicially limited avoided area where enacting discretion had been beyond required comply federal a limitation what is with requirements. constitutional 413 Mich the Court of such lines. preservation the maximum

with plans, more alternative two or Between standard, compactness that comply practicable shall to the extent shape in squareness govern.

V argued county that It has been drawing the bound- discretion have commissions long they that as districts aries should be their determinations good faith act without accept proposition One can sustained. in a case. dispositive particular it is agreeing areas for the exercise there will be Manifestly choice the reasoned A reasonable judgment. ordinarily should be sus- of judgment exercise tained. appor- Court that a county

A declaration this judgment exercise may tionment commission to show an upon objectors the burden guidance no to good provide faith would absence the commission. to know of the commission need

The members divergence range there is a permissible whether and, so, it to go if its extent. or must May 0.48% go to the or must plan? May and choose staff if to the boundaries necessary preserve 11.9% political local subdivisions? divergence, range

Unless this Court states the objec- nor neither the members of the commission of the commission duty tors will know what is the to establish an showing or what must be made they of discretion or bad faith. Nor will abuse know, the statutes unless this Court construes —1982 265 Opinion of the Court regarding continuing viability states its views the 7, § constitution, of article the what is re- quired by Michigan and the statutes Constitu- tion. obligation

The Court an has state what are governing criteria under the federal and state applicable constitutions and statutes so that will know commissions what standards are to guide objectors their deliberations and will know showing they prevail what must make in order appeal. on provide guidance deny

To fail such is to meaningful judicial review. The statute contem- plates judicial plan approved by review of a commission "to determine if the meets the requirements of the laws of this state”.38 Judicial review is thwarted if neither objectors commission nor know what the standards burden, are and the extent of their for without foreknowledge appellate always such court can ground petitioner on dismiss has showing failed to meet an undefined burden of of an breach undefined standard. Carr, 186;

Before Baker v 369 US 82 S 691; Ct (1962), responsibil- any L Ed 2d courts avoided ity apportionment process declaring in political question. deny matter to be a To effective appellate by imposing petitioner review, on an despite insurmountable the articulation burden — registered "Any days filing voter of the within 30 after the county may petition appeals his the court of to review requirements such of to determine if the meets the laws Any findings appeals appealed may this state. court be to supreme 46.406; provided by court of the state as law.” MCL MSA 5.359(6). 45.505; 5.302(5); MCL MSA see fn 9 text. for 413 Mich Moody, Jr., J. Blair in the statutes criteria of detailed statutory constitu- a the establishment indulge judicial right review—is tional preference judicial noninvolvement. Carr is the law of land that Baker v

Now ques- justiciable apportionment has become and tion, escape responsibility. its this Court cannot Appeals nor the Court of will this Court Neither apolitically if this Court fails seen to have acted objective criteria, if it in to articulate advance subjective, judgments permits ad hoc or makes depending upon time the circum- from time to inevitably case, which almost will stances of the political taint. have a neutrality only maintain its

This Court can speaking beforehand, others before knows and consequences political may that it knows the think rulings. only it not to the of its Court owes protect but to institution to itself electorate against charges when it does act it has done response pressure. political It can best so against charges by stating protect itself such govern ap- an criteria which should advance portionment it or can before others commission political consequences to the Court’s attribute decision. Appeals Court of and the causes affirmed respective apportionment

are remanded commissions. Coleman, C.J., Kavanagh, Levin, Fitz-

gerald concurred. (dissenting part). In Moody, Jr.,

Blair J. these are to decide whether cases we asked ordering Appeals Court of erred in Apportionment —1982 Wayne County by Opinion J. Moody, Jr., Blair (hereinafter Apportionment County Commission WCAC) Ingham County Apportion- ICAC) (hereinafter to draft Commission ment reappor- plans for Court new to that and submit districts of those the commissioner of tionment Appeals determined that The Court of counties. adopted by plans commissions did those requirements of this state” of the laws "the meet pursuant 5.359(6). 46.406; We con- MSA to MCL Appeals err in the case the Court of did clude that persuaded WCAC, that error but we are not in the resolution of the has been demonstrated Accordingly, reverse the we would ICAC case. Appeals Apportion judgment of of the Court Board of Comm’rs — 1982. ment of disagree part of the order we Because Ingham County Board Ap judgment of the Court of Comm’rs — peals part affirmed in and reversed should be part.

I reasoning employed in the dissent We from Legislature opinion colleagues. The is not of our provision by 7, § 7.1That bound Const art unconstitu- constitution has been declared Legislature tional. Nor can the be bound a engrafted upon "concept” judicially a de- is provision. funct attempting

Today steps beyond the Court well language sever some from a dead constitutional phrase provision reviving portion or a or of a a 7, 7: Const art organized supervisors in each "A board of shall be established township organized county consisting each of one member from representation provided by such from cities as law.” 413 Mich Moody, Jr., J. Blair creates and embellishes Here the Court

clause. knights concept, judicial a constitutional it with Legislature badge honor, and constrains redrafting concept by PA 261 follow the usurpation legislative discre- It 293. stark foundation to direct without constitutional tion that the governmental boundary goal preserving of local lines precedence must take over the units devising purpose legislatively determined valid equal population prac- "nearly as is districts ticable”.

A colleagues agree opinion . We with the of our Michigan language 7, § 7 the tution which of art Consti- requires organized counties (commissioners) supervisors consisting board of organized only one and township one member from each Equal violates the Protection Clause of Amendment.2 The the Fourteenth only representative township to a of one and one regard population clearly runs afoul of without the precepts Reynolds Sims, 533; v 377 US 84 S (1964), Avery 1362; Ct 12 L Ed 2d 506 and v County, 474; 1114; Midland 390 US 88 S Ct 20 L (1968). Ed 2d 45

It is clear that the drafters of our constitution rejected egalitarian selecting a more method of county adopted finally officials.3The method provided township, people, representation for colleagues, cannot stand. Unlike our we would end Michigan point. analysis our constitutional at this premise From that art 7 of the constitu- Const, US Am XIV. Record, 1961, pp 3 1 Official 942-952. Constitutional Convention County Apportionment —1982 Opinion by Moody, Jr., Blair J. township city tion embodies "a scheme of representation supervisors”, boards of large quantum colleagues leap logic our take a Legislature to conclude that the was not constitu- provide tionally free "to for the establishment having boundary election districts lines that do boundary townships not follow the lines of except required by Equal cities” to the extent readily It Protection Clause. observable that this section, which has been lifted out of our constitu- specify boundary requirements tion, did not line for election districts. purported goals representa- scheme or political (township city)

tion for units cannot remain without provision. the words of the constitutional representation

The "scheme” of referred colleagues viability our has no constitutional goals concepts today. The of a constitutional provision separate meaning do not have a life or apart provision. from the words of the There can goal any be no manifestation of constitutional except through language of a constitution. The concepts underlying language provision of a inseparable embody are from the words which concept. language removed, Once the is the under- goals lying longer are no viable. alleged concept presented in the constitu inseparable

tion is one from the invalid allotment of supervisor township. invalidity for each "The goes political here declared to the heart of the process democracy.” Ap in a In constitutional re portionment Legislature of State 413 Mich 1982,— (1982). representation 96; 321 NW2d 565 governance organized severely of counties is al requirement super tered once the absolute of one township visor from each This is no eliminated. 270 413 Mich 224 Moody, Jr., J. Blair supervisors longer type of for which of board they adopted people the Constitu- when voted tion of 1963. requires Equal Clause

The federal Protection township representa- 7, § the art 7 scheme of Accordingly, invali- this Court must tion be voided. concept township representation in- date cluding inseparable goals from the which are ques- provision. with the When faced words light constitutionality 261 in of Act tion of 7, § art 7 this Court stated: valid, 1966, 7 "PA 261 is section of article No notwithstanding. Avery just has lifted section out For Constitution, leaving 7 intact of our the rest of article implement legislature free to in the same appeared if 7 had ever therein.” manner as no section PA Advisory Opinion Constitutionality re No (1968). 736, 740; Mich NW2d County Clerk, 616; See Brouwer v Kent 377 Mich (1966) (equally 141 NW2d 98 divided Court af 7), voiding 7, firmed circuit court decision art Ontonagon County In re Board (On Supervisors Rehearing), App 11 Mich — 1967 (1968) (declaring 348; unconstitutional). 7, § 7 157 NW2d 698 art however, not, leave a

This did regarding vacuum

boards.

B grants Legislature Our constitution exten- powers, only specific provisions sive limited Washing- the federal and state constitutions. See Moore, ton-Detroit Theatre Co v 249 Mich (1930), 680; v 229 NW 618 Hudson Motor Car Co (1937). Detroit, 69, 79; 282 Mich 275 NW 770 Thus County Apportionment —1982 Moody, Jr., Blair J. Legislature appropriate is the to deter- body scheme of county governance. mine the Legislature, understanding the con- underpinnings equality represen- stitutional tation, provided gen- counties and also for charter 1966 PA erally counties. PA Legislature 293.4 The action of the filled 1966 PA 4 as amended: § districts, apportioning county county "In into commissioner governed by following guide- commission shall be importance: lines in the stated order of "(a) single-member nearly All districts shall be districts and as equal population practicable. published figures as is The latest official of the United States official census shall be used in this determina- tion, except requiring that in cases division of official census units to standard, population population may meet the an actual count governmental figures used to make such division. Other census population may subsequent total be used if taken to the last decennial figures United States census and the United States census are not adequate purposes secretary for the of this act. The of state shall published figures county apportion- furnish the latest official to the effect, upon taking ment commissions forthwith days this act and within 15 publication subsequent after United States official census figures. may “A contract be entered into with the United States census any special bureau to make census if the latest United States decen- figures adequate. nial census are not "(b) contiguous. All districts shall be "(c) compact nearly square shape All districts shall be as and of as practicable, depending as involved. geography county is on the area "(d) township part any city No or thereof shall be combined with or part meet the district, single thereof for a unless such combination needed to population standard. "(e) Townships, villages only necessary and cities shall be divided if to meet the standard. "(f) only necessary popula- Precincts shall be divided if to meet the tion standard. "(g) register Residents of state institutions who cannot law county any the representation. as electors shall be excluded from consideration of "(h) partisan political Districts shall not be drawn to effect advan- 5.359(4). tage.” 46.404; MCL MSA 293, 14, 1966 PA as amended: adopted provisions "A charter under the of this act shall provide following: for all of the * * * "(b) provide partisan The charter shall also for the election of legislative body single members of the from member districts to be 413 Mich by Opinion Moody, Jr., Blair J. by uncoiistitutionality 7,

the of art void left the specifically § Furthermore, 7. the constitution by county apportionment in in established the commission as created pursuant guidelines section 5 and section the last official federal decennial general less than 12 months after the federal census. Each to the standards and established (8) 5(2), (4), (5), (6), (7), reapportionment upon and for based census, regular effective at the first legislative body occurring election of the members of the not completion and certification of the city township apportioned and shall be so that largest possible complete has the boundaries before territory district.” MCL number districts within its any part city township joined of the or is to township city the of the or to form a outside boundaries 5.302(14). 45.514; MSA 293, 5, 1966 PA as amended: § "(2) commission, county apportionment days within 30 after commissioners, adoption by county the shall establish Charter commission districts charter commissioners to be elected. All districts shall be of the resolution the board of equal to the number of single equal population practicable. member districts and as official used in this official census units to meet population mental census as The latest figures published the United States official census shall be determination, except requiring that in cases a division of standard, population an actual may govern- count be used to make the division. Other figures population may of total be if used taken after the last decennial United States census and the United States census figures state shall furnish the latest official apportionment adequate purposes secretary are not for the of this act. The published figures county to the publication * * * days commission within 15 after subsequent figures. may United States official census A contract entered into With the United States census bureau to conduct a special not nearly of the partisan figures if census the latest United States decennial census are * * * adequate. contiguous, compact, Each district shall be and as square shape practicable, depending geography as is on the involved, county regard area and shall be drawn to without advantage. political city township appor- Each and shall be largest possible complete tioned so that it shall have the number of any part city township districts within its boundaries before or joined territory city township to outside the boundaries of the or cities, Townships, villages, precincts form a district. shall be only necessary population divided if to meet the standard.” MCL 5.302(5). 45.505; MSA changed nearly equal population practicable” 1980 PA 7 "as as equal practicable”. express opinion to "as as We no on significance, any, change. if of this argument parties After oral in the WCAC asked to case were governed Wayne County by brief whether the was 2 or 7 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1963 and Act 293 § § or parties 1963, 7, responded agreed Act 261. The that Const art 7§ decline, applied. situation, given apply and Act 261 Act 293. Cf. fn 35 of the We would this per opinion. curiam —1982 Moody, Jr., J. Blair for provide authority Legislature grants 1, 2.5 art Const of counties. powers §§ 1963 made a addition, Constitution In scheme of the historical break with significant units political representation township city Art of commissioners. boards county on procedures to draft Legislature permits Thus, 293. 1966 PA rule. See home county township qua town- require does constitution in charter county on the board ship representation organiza- "permit[s] specifically counties from in form different government tion of 1963, art Const forth in this constitution”. that set 7, §2. we con colleagues, of our opinion

Unlike the drafting procedure of a returning that the clude is Legislature to the county apportionment for In re opinion our consistent with question and that the Legislature 1982, of State — political the "to the heart of go involved does legis- In the state government. process” county 7, 1: Const art powers body corporate organized county and "Each shall be a provided by immunities law.” Const art 2:§ frame, county adopt, repeal "Any county may charter amend or a by provided powers among in a manner and with general and limitations to be law, things provide the election other for which shall organization may permit the of a charter commission. The law' county government in this that set forth in form different from property taxation constitution and shall limit the rate of ad valorem for county purposes, powers counties to of charter and restrict hereby county money borrow and contract debts. Each charter granted subject power levy' county purposes to to other taxes for prohibitions law. constitution or limitations and Subject set forth this authorize, law, county through county may its to a charter regularly adopt authority ordinances constituted resolutions and relating to its concerns. may, supervisors by majority its members "The board of a vote of shall, place upon upon petition percent and of five of the electors question electing a charter. ballot the a commission to frame repealed adopted, Until "No charter shall amended or be approved by majority voting question.” a of electors on the 413 Mich by Moody, Jr., J. Blair apportionment case, invalidated this Court

lative requirements apportionment the constitutional by apportionment process commission. a apportion- the constitutional concluded We from the inval- not severable were ment standards idly area-population weighted Fur- formulae. land thermore, that an determined we could not survive. standards without commission preserve Court, or- Therefore, in order to this reap- necessary permit derly and to elections legisla- preparation portionment, aof ordered guidelines plan consistent with tive Michigan’s genesis constitu- their which found developed directing plan history. By a tional guidelines, this narrow that would meet strict develop attempted standards Court drafting nonpartisan plan. These a neutral and only guidelines that, not constitutional were requirements. is to con- The Court-ordered people only two the other until or tinue government act. in this state branches legislative apportionment case, Finally, in the plan could be the Court’s the Court directed contrary plan superseded oped any devel- at time approved by Legislature the Gov- guidelines need not follow ernor. Such plan. Having uncon- declared of the Court-ordered apportionment 4, 2- §§ art rules of stitutional the power legitimate to 6,6 this Court is without government to of order the other two branches guidelines. non-constitutionally required follow Therefore, legislative apportionment case, in the 6 Apportionment State Apparently of In re all that remains after non-apportionment Legislature 1982, supra, 2-6 are the in art §§ — districts, requirements single-member for sena of election of duties senators, tors, perhaps representatives 4 relat and and numbers 5 ing mergers apportionments and § to and between annexations contiguity islands. which concerns —1982 275 Moody, Jr., Blair J. counties, in the as case of Legislature only by federal is limited constitu- any requirements Michigan tion Consti- apportion- apply, but not invalid tution which township is no ment rules. There scheme of representation city with a viable constitutional unyielding virtually which base demands adher- Legislature boundary Thus, to lines. ence design any system apportionment long free as Equal it does not run afoul of as Protection Clause the federal constitution.7

C opinion colleagues of our concludes that the statutory guidelines county for require boundary commissioner districts lines preserve city township drawn lines. opinion Apparently place precinct their would goal equality boundaries above of more than Mundt, 182; In Abate v 403 US 91 S 11.9%.8 Ct (1971), 1904; 29 L Ed 2d the United States Supreme county reapportion- Court found that a provided ment for a 11.9% deviation between districts did not contravene the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Con- Compare Howell, stitution. 315; Mahan v 410 US (1973); Chapman 979; 93 S Ct 35 L Ed 2d 320 v Meier, 420 1; 751; US 95 S Ct L42 Ed 2d 766 (1975). We believe it is erroneous conclude that (1) the "stated order” of Act 261 must be read so township city not to violate the "scheme of representation Michigan boards” of certainly Equal It is clear Clauses of the Protection Michigan no Constitution have relevance in the instant case. Com (Justice pare discussing Kent, affirmance), Souris, Brouwer v 377 Mich Const art and with discussion in the last §§ paragraphs colleagues. opinion two of Part IIIC of the our This need issue not be considered. 8But see fn 14. 413 Mich by Opinion Jr., Moody, J. Blair (2) divergence

Constitution; the of allowable 11.9% (3) a of standard; standard proper the is at time. must be set this divergence allowable 261, as these issues seriatim. Act We address com- amended, county apportionment the requires guide- apportionment governed by mission to be Eight importance. of lines the stated order forth, guideline the primary are set guidelines the apparent It is that being equality. population appropriately legislative apportionment the con- population controlling makes equality apportionment in the commissioner sideration Sims, v 567. The Reynolds US districts. See place popula- of the statute words and structure first, the require that all of tion but do equality to be and followed with- guidelines are considered the observing but stated order. excluding any, out Thus, is duty apportionment commission apply guidelines as mandated to consider the statute. require- the invalid constitutional By reviving township ments of lines under adherence re- guise opinion new guidelines, majority statute, an exalting boundary writes the lines over attempt commission’s to reach statutory population. standard of equality practical colleagues

In opinion terms the of our concludes that WCAC provided ICAC and an nearly equal districts too That is population. incorrect or unsupported conclusion and lawby logic. opinion, rearranging after majority stated order of criteria in Act so political pri- boundaries of given subdivisions are goes macy, on conclude commissions are free deviate adopt plans long from among districts so equality Abate, as the per deviation does exceed 11.9% Wayne County Appoetionment —1982 Jr., J. Blaik Moody, In supra. doing majority so has an transformed ad hoc decision the United States Supreme which turned upon Court whether the deviation a county apportionment plan was unconstitutional words, to into a standard be followed. In other the effect tell majority decision is to apportion- they ment commissions that shall deviate from population equality preserve inviolability of political the boundaries subdivisions. Thus is (the of Abate negative the essentially finding unconstitutional) was by metamorphosis not trans- formed into an by affirmative command this Court.

Obedience to an deviation 11.9% "disregards the critical that per- fact adherence to a centage deviation that is at the outside limits of consti- tutionality squared cannot overriding con- objective stitutional tion’ equality 'substantial popula- among districts. Pennsylvania Constitution plainly Act states that districts [similar 'as shall be nearly equal population practicable.’ Const, as [Pa 2, Thus, art the clear constitutional directive is 16.] reapportionment shall strive to create districts as equal, unequal, not as possible.” Reapportion- In re ment Pennsylvania Plan for Assembly, General 497 Pa 525, 536; (1981). 442 A2d

Thus, should be presumed that an appor- tioning body which complies overriding with the objective of population must have equality its by reversed a court. To allow happen this to would turn the constitutional requirement on equality its head and exalt district representation over people representation.

Furthermore, the posture and language of the Mahan case and more appropriately the Abate case do not suggest this Court should reverse the- work of the county commis- Mahan, In Abate sions. Supreme Court Mich by Moody, Jr., J. Blair plans which had been reviewed developed appor- appropriate adopted plan, approval on tioning based of each bodies. any justification from deviation full record of equality, different from is far mathematical super-apportionment acting commission as a court setting population limit of the outer at standards Mahan, the Su- In law. Abate case decided appor- approved permitted preme Court representatives plans drafted tionment apparently Today, people. invali- the Court "good plans faith effort” because dates achieve good- equality population too has been Assembly Forty-Fourth General Lucas v faith. Cf. of 1459; 27; 84 S Ct Colorado, fn 377 US (1964). 12 L Ed 2d has

Furthermore, deviation that apportion- county approved or in one state been guaranty plan it have much nor does is no ment validity question bearing of the of a on Reynolds 578; Sims, 377 US v locale. for a different Howell, 328-329; Swann v Ad- 410 US Mahan v ams, 569; 17 L Ed 2d 445; 87 S Ct 385 US (1967). Supreme Court,

Finally, United States like the preferable follow in re- course to we believe viewing case-by-case is on a cases Chapman e.g., Meier, 22; See, 420 US v basis. plan must be Adams, 445. Each v 385 US Swann Supreme set a bench- Court has not examined. The mark standard, this Court. neither should recognize equality population under We Equal the statu- Clause and the federal Protection pre- guidelines tory apportionment not mean does equality. from the Deviation cise mathematical perfect permissible. statutorily constitutionally district be exam- Each case and should county apportionment com- ined on its facts. The —1982 279 Wayne County Moody, Jr., J. Blaik able mission9 is well to determine the constitu- meaning statutory equal protection. tional This Court need not and now, should set a standard

particularly developed one which out of a particular justifica- fact situation with different tions than the instant cases.

II A analyze We now turn to these cases accor- dance statute. The WCAC convened on 2, 1981. November In an election held on Novem- approved 3, 1981, ber the voters of Wayne County charter, Charter. That inter alia, reduced number of commissioners county provisions from 27 15. Most of the January 1, charter are The on effective 1983.10 8.120(a): provided charter further existing county apportionment "The commission shall provide apportionment plan provided by law for the initial election of under commissioners this general charter 1982 primary elections for the commission established under this charter.” receiving

After the 1980 United States official figures, proceeded apportion census the WCAC purposes the commissioner For districts. of this appeal may be assumed the was 5.359(4).12 completed 46.404; under MCL MSA meeting

At its of December the WCAC proposed reapportionment plan received a from its members, own staff. ofOne the commission Hubert 5.359(3)(1). 45.505(1); 5.302(5)(1), 46.403(1); MCL MSA MCL MSA Wayne County, Home Rule Charter for Article 8.119. 11See the discussion fn 4. 12See fn 4 for the text of the statute. Mich Jr., Moody, J. Blair proposed also submitted Holley, County. for eastern plan 14, 1981, on December meeting, held the next At encom- which plan a revised submitted Holley Mr. addition, Mr. Holley In county. the entire passed plan his comparison a written submitted plan. the staff that of 6, 1982, the WCAC January meeting of

At its and the staff Holley plan the revised discussed this same date. revised as of had been plan plans that both agreed of the WCAC The members appor- with the compliance” in "substantial were noted, however, that It was guidelines. tionment for review. be submitted might plans other were plans proposed Two other addition, submitted Holley Mr. In Submitted. January on proposed plan of his third revision adopt unanimously, agreed, The WCAC 1982. plan. third revised Holley’s file Mr. 5.359(6) 46.406; MSA states: MCL days within 30 registered voter of the "Any petition plan county may his filing of the after if plan to determine appeals to review such the court the of this requirements of the laws of meets the may findings appeals Any of the court state. provided supreme of the state as appealed to the court by law.” to this statu- petitions pursuant

Two were filed of the cit- citizens tory provision. petitioners, Westland, Dearborn, Heights, and ies of Dearborn prefera- the revised staff was complained peti- plan adopted to the the WCAC. ble Westland Heights tioners from Dearborn unnecessarily stated that their cities had been districts, of the shape divided into three guide- commissioner districts was "violative Wayne Apportionment —1982 Opinion by Moody, Jr., Blair J. 46.404”, lines as forth in set MCL that there "partisan had political been considerations” in plan. adopting petitioner the from Dearborn argued further by the WCAC study would produce a plan. objected better He to the division districts, of Dearborn into shape two to the districts, to "partisan political considerations” plan. the adopting 16, 1982,

On February Court of Appeals following issued the order: petitions "In apportion- this cause for review of the

ment of the County Board of Commissioners having by O’Reilly, been filed John B. in Docket No. 62576, all 46.406; al., Bishop, and Donald et Docket No. registered county, pursuant voters of said to MCL 5.359(6), MSA and due consideration thereof having Court; by been had

"It is Wayne County Apportionment ordered Commission February show cause on or before why invalid or apportionment its should not be held applicable unconstitutional under statutes provisions. and constitutional The commission’s answer shall following: include "1. Justification for all variances from small,

equality, no matter how in each district adopted plan. "2. A complete set of provided by census materials as by Secretary commission State. "3. A complete meetings set of the minutes of the of of apportionment commission, plan together copy awith adopted, copies plans well as of all submit- of visu- ted for consideration. plans These shall consist ally sioner maps drawn descriptions and verbal of commis- by districts, districts identified enumeration United figures States census for each ED and totals for each sion rejection consideration. commissioner district. The commis- specific shall state reasons for the commission’s of each submitted to them their Mich Moody, Jr., J. Blair any additional issues raised reply written

"4. A for review.” petitions responded However, this order. The WCAC Appeals the re- was unsatisfied the Court sponse, 31, 1982, it held: and on March petitions to review the "In this cause Board plan having Wayne County the of Commissioners of filed, having by been filed response and a been Commission, Apportionment and County the Wayne having by had this thereof been due consideration Court; therefore plan adopted by Wayne the

"It is ordered that it Apportionment Commission is void because County does requirements of the laws of this not meet A state, good-faith it 1966 PA 261. of is in violation of lack equal population effort to achieve districts of (1) following in the by is at least the record: evidenced primary goal never of Mathematical exactness was the Apportion required by this Court. commission as 1972, 40 County Board of ment of Oakland Comm’rs — (1972); County of Kent App Apportionment Mich (1972). (2) App of 40 Mich Board Comm’rs — inviolability political of placed the The commission subdivisions and mathematical precincts out-county election before Apportionment of Ionia exactness. App Board 39 Mich of Comm’rs — (1972);Apportionment County 1972, supra. of Oakland — (3) split removing by A reluctance to census tracts to ex blocks another district to achieve mathematical Given materials in actness. the refinement of census ago Wayne County opinions years this ten Court’s resulting plans, Kent Oakland and zero-deviance County. accept Court can no less from Wayne County Appor "We remand the cause to express tionment Commission with instructions to mod ify dance with adopted plan adopt plan or and in accor new provisions 1966 PA 261 this order of further, and, for to submit the new to this Court days within 12 review this order. the date the certification County 1982, Delta File — Wayne County Apportionment — 1982 Moody, Jr., Blair J. Any plan 61566. before the commis- No. completely sion shall first be verified as boundaries population by Wayne County Apportionment may staff before a vote be taken on the Commission plan. Each submitted on remand must have an it, explain- individual vote on with individual members ing copies the record. Such record their vote on plans together to this Court all a shall be submitted with any justification variance from zero deviance in adopted plan each district census material. The Court reference to points out the answer of the commission to the show-cause order of this Court was unresponsive respect.

in this petitioners "The issues raised are considered (1) showing merit in that there was no without that the splitting political subdivisions was unnecessary (2) equality population. order petitioners to achieve Even if they sought by

had achieved the admissions depose, their motion to would not be sufficient of an meet the test of actual evidence intentional and in Kent systematic disenfranchisement established Oakland, supra. Accordingly, petitioners’ motion to and compel deposition denied.” applied appeal. The WCAC for leave to The granted, was and this Court application stayed in proceedings further this matter.

B 3, The ICAC held its first on November meeting all, 1981. In plans 13 were submitted to the com- number, mission its review. Several of that however, All were revisions of earlier submittals. plans among had a zero deviation the However, districts. the differed plans many respects regard degree they with to the to which guidelines adhered to the rest of the set forth 5.359(4). 46.404; MCL MSA plans

The first two which were submitted were Mich by Moody, Jr., J. Blair plans The next two moved for consideration. failed a 3 to moved, the motions so but were submitted, but were plans Thereafter several vote. failed to for consideration or not moved were the carry of votes to sufficient number receive a meeting February its Finally, at motion. for considera- had available the commission #2, the as the Baker Plan known plans tion four #2, #1, Plan and the Plan the Brewer Brewer decided, vote of Plan The ICAC Houk #3. Baker Plan and file the adopt #2. 3, 1982, filed a Jane Schoneman March On the in the Court of plan for review of petition the complained plan The Appeals. petitioner in MCL guidelines contained "violated” (e) (e) 5.359(4)(c), (d), (d), (f); 46.404(c), and MSA (f). charged it that: Specifically was #2, adopting Baker Plan the commission "In plans plan majority selected from the before (a) irregular oddly-shaped has the most lines and (b) combining districts; greatest of districts number (c) greatest of dis- townships; number cities (d) cities; dividing townships and divided the tricts precincts county.” greatest number of which the petitioner plan claimed in these adopted compared unfavorably ICAC had #3, the Brewer respects McKeague with the Plan #2, petitioner Plan and the Houk Plan #3. to either order Appeals asked Court "that adopt approve ICAC a new or to which best which was submitted to the commission requirements conforms to the law”. 4, 1982, issued a Appeals

On March the Court of to the ICAC which was show-cause order directed to the virtually previously identical to that issued Wayne County Apportionment —1982 Moody, Jr., Opinion by J. Blair responded WCAC. ICAC to the order. How- ever, 5, 1982, April on Appeals Court of issued the following order: petition

"In this cause a to review the Ingham County Board of having Commissioners filed, response having been and a been filed by the Ingham County Apportionment Commission, and due having Court; consideration thereof been had this therefore plan "It is ordered that adopted by Ingham

County Apportionment Commission is void because it requirements does not meet of the laws of this state, and it inis violation of 1966 PA for failure to comply guidelines with the subsidiary of 4. The record plans reveals all filed before the commission However, achieved zero deviance. the commission se- plan lected the mathematically violated the sub- (e) (f) (c), (d), guidelines sidiary more than other plans before the commission. The Court has stated that subsidiary guidelines give of the statute must defer- primary guideline ence to the equal districts of population. Apportionment of Ionia County Board of (1972). However, App 39 Mich once Comm’rs — achieved, mathematical exactness this Court shall any apply then those subsidiary guidelines in review. Allegan County Board of Supervisors 1968, App (1968); 13 Mich Apportion — ment of Oakland Board of Comm’rs — (1972). App Mich "We remand Ingham the cause to the County Appor- tionment express Commission with the instructions adopt a new in accordance with this order and the provisions further, of 1966 PA 261 and to submit new to this Court for review within days ten date of the certification of this order. remand the On (1) commission shall: daily Meet and hold its first meeting within 48 hours of the date of the certification of this meeting order. At this the commission shall first re-determine the size of the board. In a situation where plans any deviance, size board are all zero we decline to interfere with statutory the commission’s 224 413 Mich [May-

286 by Moody, Jr., Blair J. only ques may Such discretion discretion to size. equal necessity by the to achieve districts tioned County Van Buren Board population. Apportionment of (1972). qualify App 658 To Mich of Comm’rs — guidelines subsidiary with the size discretion board would, cases, the the commission to in most force and, thereby, destroy such discre size smallest board However, the context of zero deviance tion. within size, develop and a must a board commission chosen mathematically produces the plan a choose such (2) guidelines. subsidiary At the of the least violations first any may submit meetings commission member two size, it approved provided the is a zero plan a for board plan. Apportionment County 1982, of Delta deviance — (3) plan by must the File 61566. Each be verified No. Planning Tri-County Regional Commission within plans to the within hours hours and amendments (A) following the form: Verification figures legal description and the within each district (B) district; compactness Determine the of each such (excluding by computing the land area land district county) outside the district which has been outside Apportionment a circle. In re of State by circumscribed (C) 68777; Legislature townships or No. Total — parts parts thereof attached to cities or thereof within (D) district, plan; for the entire each Specifically identify totals township, village city each or di vided, for individ total number of divisions (E) plan; ual in the political subdivision Total (4) precincts by plan. After divided number verification, any plan may be initial submitted amended (5) submitting plan member hours. within upon plan then submit commission shall vote each (6) giving ted The each for his vote. member reasons commission proceedings of the be recorded shall transcript copy form prepared means of overnight. verbatim (7) plan adopted, plans, all the Tri other verifications, Regional County Planning Commission’s transcript, justification and a the variance of for 4(c) (f), guideline through justification each and a adopting for any with fewer mathematical guideline in each counts shall be filed with the clerk filed, this A map Court. also be but each shall —1982 Opinion by Moody, Jr., Blair J. legible map must be a census and not so-called Map’. may objections '1978 Jurisdictional Petitioner file within 24 hours.” application appeal

The ICAC filed an for leave application granted, with this Court. The was proceedings stayed we have further in this matter.

C 5.359(6), 46.406; Pursuant to MCL MSA the upon filing Appeals, petition Court of review, the for ascertain must whether the plan adopted by the commission the "meets re- quirements Thus, the this laws of state”. it is Appeals clear that if the Court of determines that plan statutory fails adhere to mandates or requirements, approve constitutional it cannot plan. plan,

In the of the case WCAC’s the order of the Appeals only Court of indicates one of defi- area ciency failure to achieve absolute mathematical —a (zero deviation) equality among commissioner dis- Wayne County tricts. The "ideal district” for terms of mathematical equality 155,859.4. is plan adopted eventually by which was the WCAC range had a is, variance of 471. That the district which most exceeded ideal in terms size people had 183.6 more than would be largest "ideal”. The district had the vari- underpopulation ance in terms of measured against people the ideal had 287.4 less than would percentage be "ideal”. In terms of of difference plan adopted by deviance, from zero WCAC had the the hand, deviation. On the other 0.3% plan, petitioners, revised staff lauded had a range people variance of 745 with a devia- 0.48% Mich Moody, Jr., J. Blair plan also had more The revised staff tion factor. splits (division villages) townships, cities, and adopted by the WCAC. did the than percentage spite extremely small In rejected plan. Appeals deviation, the Court rejection the Court of was that The reason for Appeals 5.359(4) interpreted 46.404; MSA MCL has require equality or zero deviation mathematical qua approval. only It this after a sine non for as requirement Ap- the Court of

has been met compliance peals will examine guidelines in this set forth statute. the other plan, the 1982 the Court of In the case of WCAC Appeals said: materials in "Given refinement of census ago opinions years

Wayne County in the Court can this ten Court’s plans, resulting in zero Kent deviance Oakland and accept Wayne County.” no less from equality concept mathematical absolute prominently districts, in Kirk- in election so noted subsequent patrick, law, case been revised has supra, by notably by Mundt, Mahan most Abate v Cummings, supra, by Gaffney Howell, v v (1973). 735; 2321; 37 L Ed 2d 298 US S Ct In Abate the Court reviewed County, York, Board of the Rockland New Supervisors. from There was a total deviation population equality among the five districts rejected The Court a claim that 11.9%. equal protection The Court

violated standards. permitted would observed that some deviations provided be policy. they were on rational state based Supreme Mahan, In Court States United Wayne County Apportionment —1982 Jk., J. Blaik Moody, Virginia examined the validity Legis- State redistricting plan. lature The Court held that population while absolute equality was sole congressional apportionment, greater criterion flexibility permitted legislative would be in state that a rational state policy minor justify precise could deviations from equal- ity. Gaffney

In the Court held that some deviations in a "so legislative plan state were minimal” that no justification population for the variances was required. The deviation on the average was 1.9% and the maximum deviation was 7.83%. decisions, upon

Based these is recognized it that the federal constitution does require absolute mathematical for equality reapportion- It the ratio decidendi ment. is clear to us that Appeals interpretation the Court of 46.404; MCL 5.359(4) as requiring MSA population zero devi- Kirkpatrick is ance case. canWe discern no legislative require intention to absolute mathemat- ical to the virtual equality exclusion of the other guidelines contained in the statute. It is true that in the hierarchy guidelines in the statute having consideration of districts "as nearly of equal population as practicable” is given pri- However, macy. is not to say say other criteria need only consulted when and if a plan attains zero deviance. The phrase "as nearly of equal population practi- as is cable” does not mean equality”. "mathematical If Legislature had intended require mathemat- ical equality, could easily have done so. It did not, interpret and we language 46.404; of MCL 5.359(4) MSA as not requiring equal- mathematical ity the apportioning of commissioner districts on the basis population. 413 Mich by Jr., J. Moody, Blair

D plan rejecting ICAC, the the Court of the In plan, though finding Appeals a that that made a unfavorably compared plan, deviance zero three other Court of plans were submitted the which comparison. purposes Appeals plan by adopted alleged petitioners the that the compact not as which were had districts ICAC shape practicable, square nearly as would be townships parts or thereof more combined standard needed meet than was deviation). (which zero In assumed to be addi- was plan adopted petitioners that the tion, claimed townships, cities, and the ICAC divided more plans any precincts of the other which had than before ICAC. been April Appeals its order of

The Court adopted rejected plan in which it finding ICAC, a that the ICAC’s filed made "mathematically subsidiary plan violated (e) (f) (c), (d), plans guidelines than and more other addition, In the commission”. Court before deviance ruled that "within the context of zero size, must de- and a chosen board a commission plan velop such mathemati- and choose subsidiary cally produces the least violations guidelines”. shape to the in the ICAC

As the districts petitioner although plan, alleges this is guideline assess, a visual "difficult” nevertheless comparison plan the three of the ICAC vis-á-vis plans comparison other used for reveals "comprised irregular lines ICAC more petitioner oddly shaped also districts”. The that an examination of ICAC contends County —1982 Opinion by Jr., Moody, J. Blair plans and the three other reveals that the ICAC plan "compact” was the least that term was In Legisla- re of Apportionment State defined in ture-1982.13 regard

With to issue of combining townships the districts, to form petitioner proffers cities the counting: two methods of one count simply would combinations, the number of districts with such other while the would add the number of town- or within ships, villages cities the then county and count number that the were combined each by (The plan. ICAC argues that the latter method method, employed.) argues should be Under either the petitioner, plan equal the ICAC is the worst or compared to the worst as to the plans. other three villages, As to division of townships, and cities petitioner points the out that under either the above, counting two methods of to alluded the three, to plan, compared ICAC the other is the best plan. counting, Under the first method the ICAC was the plan plan. worst Under the second method counting, the ICAC or plan the worst the equal worst compared when to the other three plans. petitioner the

Finally, charged has the (85, ÍCAC divides precincts more as opposed 76) 49, 76, than the three plans other the ICAC given has no justification credible for this other than to charge that this criterion should ignored because it for the simply exists convenience of clerks._ Apportionment 134; Legislature 1982, In In re of State 413 Mich — (1982),

321 NW2d 580 we stated: "e) district, circle, containing An by election circumscribed (excluding least Great land area land state outside of this or under Lakes) district, compact.” outside of the is the most 413 Mich by Jr., Moody, Blair J. here, responds to the ICAC, appellant First, ways. in two

arguments petitioner above, ICAC, challenges the manner as noted the number has calculated petitioner addition, ICAC In combinations divisions. employed the method of calculation claims that into account an annex fails take petitioner As to 1980. City ation Williamston Court contends that "compactness”, ICAC have improperly and the Appeals petitioner forth compactness definition of set applied the Legis opinion in In re State our lature — 1982 to a before that decision adopted splitting pre to the of Finally, was rendered. are, indeed, cincts, argues precincts that the ICAC than entities and that nothing more artificial splits precincts more than plan fact that its of rejection plan.14 not warrant a others does point appeal, most on emphasized ICAC’s however, of Appeals is that Court erred plan theory its on the that the ICAC invalidating adopted plan should have which "mathemati- the least of cally produces subsidiary violations guidelines”. The which should be em- standard ICAC, ployed, according to the is one of clear by abuse of discretion the commission. The ICAC states, part: Appeals requirement 'perfect "The Court for the plan’ imposed com- should not be on an capable mission. Any plan improvement in some degree (although improvement may in one result area areas). in a in other The effect of Court of loss

Appeals the apportionment order is to remove from requirement year 14 1982 PA 2 that added the second "[i]n census, following precincts pursuant each federal shall be divided 6.1661(3). 168.661(3); inviolability this subsection”. MCL MSA precincts under Act 261 is thus reduced. Wayne County Apportionment —1982 by Moody, Jr., Blair J. commission all discretion in decision-making. The Court Appeals opinion could result adoption of the last 'best’ (mathematically speaking). The courts should not overturn an commission deci- sion unless there is a clear abuse of discretion that applying commission in the nonconstitutional subsid- iary criteria.”

E What standard of review should be applied when the Court of Appeals examines an apportionment plan adopted by a pursuant commission to MCL 5.359(4)? 46.404; MSA 5.359(6) 46.406; MCL MSA simply states the Court Appeals must determine if the plan "meets the requirements the laws of However, this state”. it is clear the Court of Appeals has adopted a standard require would a commission to adopt plan which best meets the requirements state, laws of this with the law being the criteria which are 5.359(4). set forth in 46.404; MCL MSA This standard leaves very discretion, little if any, in the apportionment commission. If an individual demonstrate, could for instance, that his or her plan, while in all other respects identical to that favored majority commission, neverthe- less divided fewer precincts, such a would qualify as the "best” plan.

We are convinced that the Legislature did not intend to so limit the discretion of apportion- the ment commission. Certainly the record sup- must port the conclusion that apportionment the com- mission followed guidelines the in 46.404; MCL 5.359(4). MSA Sims, In Reynolds v supra, the United States Supreme Court, in legislative a state apportionment context, required "an honest and 413 Mich Opinion by Moody, Jr., Blair J. the states part effort” on the

good-faith equal population nearly districts as achieve this should standard also practicable. We believe the assessing efforts of applied when with the comply commission apportionment 5.359(4). 46.404; in MCL MSA guidelines contained reduce the require To more would to a mere mathematical exercise process an commission would constitute require To less little more than a board account. prompted to the evils which give would rise in the first instance. guidelines establishment F and the ICAC plans Did the which WCAC good-faith an adopted demonstrate "honest specified the criteria effort” comply 5.359(4)? 46.404; We would answer MCL MSA in the case of the affirmative question negative in case plan in the WCAC’s plan. the ICAC’s

WCAC opinion, only As we noted in this two earlier by serious plans which received consideration adopted were ultimately WCAC (the the one to it "Holley” and the submitted plan) (the plan). its own staff "revised staff” We conclude clearly record before us demonstrates guidelines the WCAC all of the their considered stated order of and made an "honest importance good-faith to select a which ad- effort” Thus, plan adopted hered to those criteria. laws requirements the WCAC "meets this state”. Wayne County Apportionment —1982 Opinion Blair J. Moody, Jr.,

ICAC the meetings minutes of of the ICAC evi- predilection a on part commission, dence of the prior decisions, understandable in view of court to be concerned with population equality virtually However, the exclusion of all other factors. all 13 which, another, at plans one time or were prof- fered to the commission were zero deviation plans. situation, In such a is obvious that adherence to other in guidelines the statute should deter- mine selection. case,

In petitioner this has convincingly compared established that other plans three was, one the commission ultimately adopted against judged guidelines, the other the worst of (if used) group the petitioner’s tests are or the (if equal worst or the worst group used). ICAC’s tests are Appeals Court of made was, finding indeed, a that the ICAC’s plan Moreover, worst of the four. persuaded, we are not on the basis us, of the record before that the ICAC gave adequate guidelines consideration to the 5.359(4)(c)-(f). 46.404(c)-(f); MCL MSA

Ill The ICAC has raised three other contentions on appeal. alleges Specifically, ICAC that 1) Court of Appeals erred: in requiring each plan submitted be on each voted and that commis- 2) vote; sion give member reasons for in requir- his ing that the commission choose board size at its 3) record; the first meeting imposing on unreasonable time constraints on remand. agree

We with the ICAC the Court Mich Moody, Jr., J. Blair plans requiring Appeals vote all on erred requiring statement of reasons submitted and find would of each commissioner. We vote unnecessary requirements unwise to and be such encroachments tive Mich upon quasi-legisla actions of Giddings Secretary body. State, v of See therefore NW We would (1892). 8; Appeals judgment. part of the of vacate this Court no error in the order the Court We would find of required Appeals to insofar as it the ICAC of meeting, adopt size at the first to choose its board days, and new to submit within ten a to submit

copies plans the first of all considered at clearly meetings. Appeals Here Court of two orderly timely attempting to an insure was procedure to followed on remand.

IV to has filed a motion strike certain WCAC petitioners’ appeal. issues in brief on raised question petition- raised The issues in were Appeals propriety ers as of the Court of to peti- correctly order. The WCAC tioners observes that attempting raise issues with- are these appeal applying leave out ever for leave to or for appeal cross-appellants. Ac- GCR 853. questions. cordingly, would we not entertain these V judgment We of would reverse the the Court Appeals Apportionment Wayne County in Board part affirm Comm ’rs — 1982. We would part judgment reverse in Appeals Court Ingham Board of Comm’rs — 1982. Wayne County Apportionment —1982 Williams, J. JJ., Ryan,

Williams concurred with Blair Moody, Jr., J. J.). (concurring

Williams, J. Moody, Be- of the compelling cause necessity urgent deci- sion order to accommodate the election time Moody’s schedule, I concur with Justice opinion, but reserve the right submit a later opinion if expanding my views further reflection suggests that would be useful.

Case Details

Case Name: Apportionment of Wayne County Board of Commissioners—1982

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: May 5, 1982

Citation: 321 N.W.2d 615

Docket Number: Docket Nos. 69146, 69155. (Calendar Nos. 1, 2)

Court Abbreviation: Mich.