*1
162 Mich
DIRECTOR,
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
FREY
22, 1987,
July
Detroit. Decided
No. 101639. Submitted
at
Docket
12, 1987.
granted,
August
appeal
would hold that since the initiative for imme- effect, passed by Legislature pursuant diate the act to that initiative should take immediate effect. He would affirm. Legislature — — — Constitutional Law Initiatives Immediate Eeeect. A law which is initiative and is enacted Legislature forty days without or amendment within ninety days accordance with Const 9 takes effect passed after the end of the session at which it was if give does not immediate effect to the act vote of two-thirds of the members in each house in accordance 4, §27, language with Const if even proposal adopted contains that the law shall take immediate effect. (by Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone John D. Hodge, Timothy Sawyer Pirich, Michael J. Knowl- Moody), ton, Noah Eleizer Yanich and Kevin J. for plaintiff.
Dykema, Spencer, Trigg (by Gossett, Goodnow & McLellan, Richard D. Perrone, William J. and Wilder), Cindy intervening defendants-ap- M. pellees. Kelley, Attorney General,
Frank J. Louis J. Gary Caruso, General, Solicitor and P. Gordon and 162 Opinion of the Court Gartner; General, Richard P. Attorneys Assistant for defendants. Cynar Hood, P.J., Shepherd,
Before: JJ. right from the appeal Plaintiffs as of
Hood, P.J. 30, 1987, Circuit Cоurt Ingham order June the motion for granting Bell Judge Holmes Robert and dissolving of defendants disposition summary had re- restraining order which a temporary 1987 PA of initiated law application strained 30, 1987, End Tax- the Committee April On Abortions, Michigan question com- Funded ballot mittee, of State petitions Secretary filed with the to amend the Social Welfare legislation to initiate seq. seq.; MSA 16.401 et 400.1 et Act, MCL state-funded proposal prevent aim *3 recipients except the for welfare where abortions life. The is to save the mother’s necessary abortion states: proposed amendment Michigan of the State of enact: provi- Notwithstanding any other Section 109a. act, be a abortion shall sion an not TO A RECIPI- SERVICE PUBLIC FUNDS PROVIDED WITH BENEFITS, A THROUGH ENT OF WELFARE WHETHER ASSISTANCE, GENERAL ASSIS- PROGRAM OF MEDICAL TANCE, OR THROUGH CATEGORICAL ASSISTANCE OR TYPE AID OR PRO- ANY OTHER OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE GRAM, TO THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY SAVE UNLESS THIS THE THE IT IS THE POLICY OF LIFE OF MOTHER. OF PUBLIC STATE TO PROHIBIT THE APPROPRIATION THE OF AN ABORTION FUNDS FOR PURPOSE PROVIDING A UN- TO PERSON WHO RECEIVES WELFARE BENEFITS LIFE LESS IS TO SAVE THE THE ABORTION NECESSARY OF THE MOTHER. language: petition
At the bottom оf the was "This take immediate effect.” act v DSS Frey Opinion op the Court with Const was filed accordance permitting 2, § the section initiatives.1 12, 1987, Board of Canvassers State On June signatures petitions, 395,751 certified valid on signatures required for 191,000 an than the more initiative 2, § 17, the 9.2On June Senate thirty enact amendment a vote voted to requested Pollack a vote on Senator Lana six. effect, the Senate denied re- immediate but quest by the Sen- the basis of a memorandum on Operations which on Government ate Committee concluded that immediately the amendment was petition stated in effective because so and under 9 the because permitted to or amend the initiative proposal. Consequently, the Senate took no vote on effect. immediate Representatives ap- 23, the House of
On June forty- proved sixty-six to a vote of Representative Jr., Harrison, re- Charles one. quested effect, the House
a vote
but
request
the same reasons
Sen-
denied the
Secretary
The statute was delivered to
ate did.
assigned
designation
Ingham Circuit relief, PA 59 not have that 1987 could arguing tive alleged under Plaintiffs immediate effect. 27, 1963, 4, only the amendment could Const § voted, if the immediate effect have house, of each two-thirds of the members a vote of Plaintiffs also the act effect. give mandamus, defen- requiring an order of requested funding Medicaid for abortions dants to continue the act became effective. The until such time as Kallman, T. assigned Judge was James case absence, and, Judge Giddings James R. in his order, restraining restraining entered a temporary Judge Kall- of the initiated law. application disqualified man himself. later hearing Judge on June Robert At a Bell, the case had been reas- Holmes to whom in favor of signed, granted summary disposition restrain- temporary defendants and dissolved ing Judge order. Bell ruled that separate from the process under article § and, therefоre, of article legislative process Judge to article subject initiative was 2, Bell ruled that article was self-sufficient a two-thirds vote for immediate require did not the immediate effect. He concluded was a proposal contained controlling. the initiative and was right from that appeal Plaintiffs filed this as of granted plain- 1987. This Court July decision on for immediate stay tiffs’ motion for a and motion consideration, and we now reverse. for initiatives and referendums procedure 2, 9, forth in Const which states
set pertinent part: people reserve to themselves the laws,
propose reject and to enact and called laws *5 Frey 591 DSS op Opinion the Court reject approve or initiative, power to referen- legislature, called the enacted laws laws only initiative extends power The dum. under this consti- may enact legislature which tution. not extend does of referendum state institutions appropriations for making to acts and must be in state funds meet deficiencies or to invoked prescribed by law within in the manner adjournment following final days enacted. the law was at which legislative session referendum, petitions initiative or To invoke electors, not less registered signed by a number percent than initiative and five for eight percent for all candi- total vote cast of the referendum general preceding the last governor at dates for shall be governor was elected at which election required. petition shall be by initiative proposed Any law legislature with- rejected by or either enactеd days within 40 session change or amendment out received petition is time such from legislature. proposed by such any law If legislature shall by the enacted shall be subject referendum, provided. as hereinafter by the is not enacted proposed If the law so days, the state officer the 40 legislature within such law by law shall submit authorized to the next rejection at the approval or people for . . . general election. initia- people by either to the Any law submitted approved by a petition and
tive or referendum any thereon at election votes cast majority of the the date of days after take effect initiated or the vote. No law official declaration subject to the veto peoрle shall be adopted by the power of the people at the adopted by the no law governor, and polls under ex- repealed, amended electors unless shall be of this section otherwise cept by a vote provided in the by three- measure or serving elected to the members fourths of legislature. house each 162 Mich Opinion op the Court question is whether Const in this case Legisla- enacted § to laws pursuant Article 27 states: to initiative. ture expiration of effect until the No act shall take at which it from the end of the session legislature may give passed, immedi- but the *6 vote of the mem- a two-thirds ate effect to acts serving in each house. bers elected to and 4, If to laws enacted article Legislature pursuant initiative, the amendment go may into immediate in the instant case not having question effect, the of immediate effect not passed by a vote of two-thirds of voted on and been apply 4, § 27 to laws house. If article does not each pursuant initiative, the amendment enacted given effect, as stated in the must be petition. impression, and we find This is a case of first guidance published precedent. thor- After little ough 4,
review, § 27 does we that article believe pursuant apply to initiative and to laws enacted required that, vote of two-thirds of without go may house, PA 59 into effect each ninety days at until after the end of the session come to this conclusion which was enacted. We through perceive the intent of the what we delegates, the lan- 1963 constitutional convention guage precedent states, 2, 9,§ from other of article reasoning. and common-sense is entitled Article 4 of the 1963 constitution "Legislative It sections which Branch.” contains generally In- with the branch. deal of senators and are sections on the number cluded representatives (§§ apportionment of districts 8), 3), (§§ legislators requirements 7, re- 2, (§§ 10), legislative privi- legislators strictions on Frey DSS Opinion of the Court 11), (§ compensation lege commission formation of 13), 14), 12), (§ (§ (§ convening quorum es time of 17), (§ require journal of committees tablishment 22), 19), (§ (§§ title-object clause bills ment (§ 26), (§24), reading requirement printing and (§ 32), (§ 29), imposing special taxes acts local or (§ 33), publication governor’s laws veto 38). 35), (§ (§ in offices and vacancies initia- first look at the constitution’s We changes provision made and the tive-referendum provision the 1908 and 1963 consti- in the between provision in the tutions. The initiative-referendum 5, § 1. It 1908 constitution was set forth important 5 of the 1908 to note that article "Legislative Department” constitution was entitled are in- and contained the same 4 of the 1963 constitution. For cluded example, setting
Const art forth apportionment districts, number of senators and 5, § 3, § 2; Const is now Const setting representatives, the number of is now forth *7 5, 6, 1963, 4, § 3; 1908, § art Const art Const holding having prohibiting person a office from a Legislature, 1963, 4, art seat in the is now Const title-object 5, 21, clause, 8; 1908, § § Const art the 1963, 4, § art 24. is now Const paragraph 1, 1908, The fourth of Const art read:
The second reserved to the is the pаssed by legislature shall referendum. No act adjourn- go into effect until 90 after the final legislature passed session of the which ment of the act, except making appropriations such such acts pres- immediately necessary and such acts peace, public safety, health or ervation of the given by action of the have been immediate effect legislature. 162 Mich op Opinion the Court 5, in Const art repeated
This title-object clause. § provision found initiative-referendum 5, 1, 2 of was moved to article Const The lan- constitution, "Elections.” entitled passed by that an act guage after the final go ninety days not into effect until the Legislature of the session of adjournment from act was eliminated passed which such Hоwever, a review provision. initiative-referendum among delegates to the 1963 discussions constitutional convention indicates that dele- gates period that ninety-day did intend applicable to the initiative delay should not be Rather, recognized process. they ninety- provided for in Const day wait was 1963, art 27. now Const Hoxie, legis- Mr. chairman of the committee on lative stated: powers, pro- Removed from constitutional status are the filing petitions, visions on content and time of sizes, canvassing petitions, type of names right legislature prescribe penalties. Also
removed is the acts of effectiveness date v, 21. section which covered [2 Record, 1961, p Official Constitutional Convention Emphasis added.] following Also significant cоlloquy be- delegates tween Nord and Kuhn: Now, Mr. I would like to raise this one Nord: Kuhn. question, may, if I Mr. Is it further with your understanding then in the so called could not enact law which initiative in terms, repeals? In other impliedly, or else law, words, enacting include the doesn’t *8 law, enacting amending or possibility a new repealing an old law? Frey v DSS Director Opinion of the Court Mr. Kuhn: If I understand question cor- rectly, they repeal can enact law which would another law? Mr. Nord: Yes. The legislature They can do that. terms, repeals
can enact a law which in or else impliedly, another law. Well,
Mr. Kuhn: that, people yes. can do Mr. case, Nord: If that’s the doesn’t it seem as though there is an in inconsistency, that order repeal provision a law under it cent, requires pеr repeal but in it order to under cent, provision requires per referendum yet referendum; and and there’s no difference between the initiative
they require petitions? both difference, Mr. Kuhn: There is a sir.
Mr. Nord: What is the difference?
Mr. Kuhn: The difference is the time limit. After passed by legislature, a statute is there are 90 days goes before it into effect. And the reason for days give go this 90 is to time to out get petitions. those [referendum] Chairman, Mr. Kuhn, Nord: Mr. Mr. I under- day provision, stand that when there is a 90 that assuming But I case. am mistaken in provision? that has been stricken from the Oh, no; Mr. Kuhn: that 90 is still there.
Mr. Nord: That is still in this proposal? article, Mr. Kuhn: It particular is not but v, 21,1 it is our article section believe. Mr. Oh, Nord: got you, right. I’ve then. All Record, you. Thank Constitutional Official Con- [2 1961, p Emphasis vention added.] This indicates colloquy clеarly delegates language intended found in currently Const 27 to to initiatives. apply of article 9 itself also indicates to laws Legislature. and enacted section states: "The reserve to themselves propose reject laws and to enact and *9 App op Opinion the Court added.) (Emphasis laws, . . . called adopted by by is submitted initiative When a law merely proposing Legislature, people are the the the enacting Legislature If law, the law. and the is rejected by the and submit- is the law general next election ted approved, the at the In the the law. the have enacted enacting, Legislature doing instance, the first the subject 4, § 27. it to article is power provides: initia- addition, §9 of In "The legislature only to laws which tive еxtends may under this constitution.” Under enact Legislature may constitution, immediate- enact only by each vote of two-thirds of effect laws subject thus must be The of initiative house. limitation. the same compels aspect language §9 of Another of "[a]ny Section 9 states that the same conclusion. law initiative be either legislature rejected by the without enacted or days change . . . .” In within 40 or amendment opinion, the substantive amend our ment MCL 400.1 et "law” seq.; seq. MSA 16.401 et proposed by stating provided initiative, is: not be a that an abortion shall service public recipient wel- with funds to a of designated as fare The "law” is that benefits. sentence, immedi- The "This act shall take 109a. effect,” of substantive law. ate is not procedural provision. Rathеr, it is a This view Supervisors supported Thompson Bd Rptr Co, 555; 3d 225 Cal Alameda Cal (1986). Thompson, opponents of certain redis- In calling petitions tricting circulated initiative repeal adoption would an of an ordinance which redistricting re- ordinance. earlier ceived the
required signatures number and was Thompson, Supervisors. submitted to Board Frey v DSS Director Opinion of the Court supra, code, Under p California elections the board was to either required adopt pro- it posal without submit to the at voters purported the next election. board enact However, the initiative. where the initiative stated it "immediately upon pas- was to be effective its voters,” sage by passed the ordinance as board providеd that was to effective thirty its This adoption. after was done because the *10 provided elections code that passed by acts the legislature were to into go thirty effect after adoption. appellants alleged Id. appeal, On the that, date, the changed when board the effective it adopt failed purposed to the ordinance "without change” and thus obligated was to submit the Id., ordinance to the voters. 560. The court dis- agreed and held that the language effective date part was not a of the proposed substantive law by the initiative. The court noted that California has wherein, an system” "indirect initiative before an vote, can go initiative before the for a it presented must to and legislа- be rejected by ture. Since the initiative presented had been to and it legislature, enacted to subject Id., thirty-day provision the code. 561. The that, court noted when the board enacted the ordinance, it change initiative made no in the Id., substantive law. 561. Defendants’ inter- vening attempts defendants’ in the instant case to distinguish Thompson because it involved a con- flict language between the petition an initiative statute, and a California than rather a conflict two provisions, between constitutional per- are not Thompson suasive. for the proposition stands that language effect is not an initiative proposed adopt law and to the proposed law without the immediate does language not requiremеnt violate the the Legislature 586 162 Mich
598 Opinion of the Court amend- "without law adopt since article compelling particularly ment.” This system, indirect also involves an §9 a chance to react gives first which to spare opportunity will and an people’s public of a vote.3 expense intervening position defendants’ Defendants’ 2 is applicable no article way 4 is in that article the fact that article further weakened adopted by law initiated or states: "No governor.” power the veto subject If article power is conferred The veto to have sections had not meant delegates exempt- to article apply article veto governor’s from ing initiatives necessary. not have been would suрport proposition Further Leininger found in State, 644; 26 NW2d Secretary (1947). Leininger, law In the Court held an initiative was defective title accordance did contain because 5, 21, clause title-object with Const § 24). Leininger, supra, (now p Const *11 of Const holding requirement the title 648. In initiatives, 1963, 5, the Court applied stated: 1908, 5, §21, Michigan of Constitution part
provides in as follows: object, more than one law shall embrace "No expressed in its shall be which title.”_ that, petition it was if the had stated The circuit court noted adopt it as go have had to effect in would into Even if we were date would have stood. is and the 1990 effective part provision of the substantive date were find that a 1990 effective no there would be issue as whether of the initiative law binding. no portion would be There is constitutional of the initiative having go There is into at some future date. a law effect limitation a limitation only on immediate effect. Frey v DSS op Opinion the Court every makes the title an This essential requirement That title law. enacted to laws initiative, by as en- well as to those doubt, by legislature, acted particularly there can no provision in view of the of section by that no law be enacted the initiative that not, Constitution, by could under be enacted [Leininger, supra, legislature. p 648.] incorporated 4, §27 Unless article into process, guide there no initiative initiative without to when an language, en- effect by Legislature, acted Attorney becomes effective. The question General addressed this in OAG 1964). p (Aрril 1963-1964, No In that opinion, Attorney General discussed the effec- petition tive date of a law Legislature making and enacted tenure of mandatory Michigan. teachers petition The initiative Legisla- specify that,
did not should the petition law, ture enact the initiative into the law immediately Attorney would become effective. The opinion General’s concluded: IV, given Consideration must also be to Article Michigan Sec. 27 of the Constitution provides which as follows: act expiration "No shall take until 90 days from the end of the at session which passed, legislature give but the may immedi- ate effect to acts two-thirds vote the mem- serving bers elected to and each house.” II, Reading of Article Sec. 9 and IV, together, light Article Sec. 27 оf the form of petition presented legislature initiative ing to the call- mandatory specifying tenure without im- petition mediate effect in such legisla- should the it, ture enact the conclusion must follow that initiative Michigan legislature, shall which has been enacted entitled Act P.A. expiration not take effect until the of 90 *12 162 Opinion of the Court passed. it at which was of the session the end after [Id., 367-368.]
Intervening lan- that with this claim defendants expressly recognized guage Attorney General by proposed it is initiative states that, an if a law given go effect, imme- to into immediate not However, issue was before that effect. diate Attorney in that case was General, recognition any date, and effective on the silent given language was to be that implied. merely effect was Rather, as indicat- the above we read Attorney ing that General a conclusion applies initiatives. Either article 4, § 27 to applies or it 4, 27 to all initiatives apply only to initiatives which do cannot none. It specify date, not since that would an effective not provide stability that laws
to initiatives and assure equal footing proposed by are on an initiatives Legislature not with acts people. position place
Acceptance would of defendants’ superior, proposed not on a laws footing legislative equal, not with acts emerges everything people. from Since the the legislation, acts all footing. equal Stated other on an must be necessary language, that it is once it is conceded the effec- article 4 in order determine refer to tive date to legislation that does not refer initiated immediately appar- date, it becomes an effective to exist between is said ent the wall article 2 and article does exist.4_ constitutionally procedures neces of article also mandated 4 Other 2, e.g., (quorum legislation sarily apply under article initiated meetings), (open (publication requirement), and distribution 20§ laws). *13 Frey v DSS 601 Opinion of thk Court Finally, subject were not to initiatives 27,§ an anomalous result would a obtain where rejected by Legis- law people. lature and submitted to the vote of approved by §9, a Under takes effect ten such law days of after date the official petition Thus, declaration of the vote. if even language, contained immediate it not would waiting take immediate effect. If there is a such period by for a law which has been on a voted majority electorate, there is even more waiting period reason has have a a law which garnered only eight percent the vote of registered vein, In that, electors. this we note even if we to find were the immediate-effect lan- guage of the initiative in the instant case Legis- law, were a of the substantive had the change, adopted not lature it without would have been submitted to the for a vote whereupon, passed, gone had it it would not have into effect until ten after the election. rely Secrеtary State, Defendants Decher (1920). 576-577; Mich In NW 388
Decher, the Court held that a resolution Michigan Legislature ratifying an amendment the United States Constitution was an "act” subject § 1, referendum under Const supra, p 2, § Decher, now Const To 9. extent that Decher stated that the word 5, § "act” in article "had mind statute passed formality required by law with the approved by governor,” Constitution is dicta and does not control the case. instant argument giving
Plaintiffs’ the act immedi- impair right ate effect would their to referendum referendum 2, § is without merit. Under article ninety days must be invoked within adjournment of the final session at which the 162 Opinion the Court given the law enacted. Whether law was immediate addition, inter- In effect is irrelevant. argument vening fact that the that the defendants’ "passed” in artiсle uses the term constitution 2, § 9 indi- the term "enact” § 27 and only apply 4, § 27 is to bills that article cates initiated meritless. We also framers are the words chosen feel merely and do not have a matter semantics bearing us. on the issue before holding to initia- that article impair
Our *14 practice the initia- the that tives does tive the with of by process "be interfered with neither should charged legislature, courts, the officers nor Secretary premises,” any duty in the Scott (1918). State, 643; 202 Mich 168 NW uphold right people to of the initiate We legislation through only hold
initiative. We Legis- proposed by the such a law is enacted when lature, subject 4, § it is to article signed question people who no We have petition intended in the instant case However, that have immediate effect. the act to dispositive. does Since Constitution fact is not not vote signed permit happen without a two-thirds this to people Legislature, who neither give nor this can effect Court adopted by which is intention. A constitution places upon people majority limitations a prohibited example, people people. are the from For legislation initiating cannot be which Any placed adopted Legislature. limitations government upon or in either only changed by a constitu- can constitution tional amendment. sum,
In we hold that when law is Legislature by the is enacted with- initiative and forty within amendment out Fkey v DSS Director J. by Cynar, Dissent required by goes ninety § 9, article into effect days after the end the session at which it was passed give if the does not the act a vote of two-thirds each members in house. reversed, decision of the trial court is and
summary judgment plaintiffs ordered favor opinion. accordance with this Shepherd, J., concurred.
Cynar, (dissenting). compelled J. amI to re- spectfully agree majori- dissent. I do not with the ty’s position Michigan 4, §27 that article process. Constitution to the initiative Arti- cle 2 of the constitution addresses the issues of electors, elections, and the initiative and referen- processes. dum hand, On the other estab- powers lishes and defines the legislative and duties of the government. branch of Looking plain at the and common sense mean- ing of the words 9§ used and article § 27, it is clear that these constitutional separate are distinct. Article 9 reserves to power propose the laws laws and enact reject through initiative, and the *15 approve reject Legisla- to ture laws enacted the
through referendum. The of initiative only Legislature may extends to laws which the pro- enact this under constitution. Once law is posed by petition, initiative shall either be en- rejected by Legislature acted or without forty or amendment within session petition from the time is received. Const self-executing 2, 9§ Article is in that it does not depend upon implementation, statutory even though provision states, last of the article 586 162 Mich
604 by Cynae, J. Dissent implement legislature "[t]he State, 192 Thompson Secretary section.” (1916); v Secre- 512, 520; Ferency 159 NW Mich 569, 591, 9;n 297 NW2d State, tary of (1980). in that is contained Article §27 pro- bill dealing with constitution spеaks only article language of cess. The "pass” The term petitions. not initiative bills and describing when only in article 4 and used only the word Article contains process. the bill §9 term 27 uses while "enacted” employed Because different "passed.” articles, that article this is an indication in these through the bill legislation created 27 governs process. not the initiative process, 1963-1964, addition, p 365 No. In OAG 9, 1964), proposition supports (April and that takes immediate petition of each independent and separate article 4 are case, discussed Attorney General other. In that initiative date of law effective making enacted petition Michigan. mandatory teachers tenure of im- it would become petition specify did Lеgisla- enactment upon mediately effective General concluded: Attorney ture. petition specify did not initiative The aforesaid legislature enact provisions that should the
by its law, petition the law would into the initiative immediately effective. become II, 9 and provisions Article Sec. Reading the form IV, together, light Article Sec. . . legislature to the . petition presented peti- immediate effect such specifying without tion must follow that it, legislature enact the conclusion should which has *16 Frey DSS 605 by Cynae, J. Dissent Michigan legislature . . been enacted . expiration take effect until 90 passed. after the end of the session at it which was Id., 365, [Emphasis added. 367-368.] language indicating majority The reads this as 4, § conclusion article 27 to initiatives. language differently. I read the above The Attor- ney merely 4, § General concluded that article applied petitions they should be to initiative where Attorney are as to silent their effective The date. ap- 4, § General did not conclude that article plies majority initiatives all situations as the Attorney reasons. The General "borrowed” the 27 because the teacher provide tenure initiative did not for effective date language. unnecessary case, In this is to refer specify since initiative did its own terms that it shall have immediate effect. majority Thompson Super relies v Bd of App Co, visors of 555; Alameda Cal 3d 225 Cal (1986), Rptr proposition for the the effec language merely "procedural,” thereby tive date рart body not a of the main of the initiative. Thompson distinguishable First, for two reasons. required the effective date the ordinance to was in order for
comply with the Califor Secondly, equally nia election code. it can ar gued language that effective date in a language substantive, law is no matter where appears an initiative. case,
In the immediate effect people. of the initiative as Legislature pass chose to easily rejected written. The could have petition including the entire the immediate language. principles
Moreover, of constitutional construe- *17 586 162 Mich 606 by Cynar, J. Dissent In v Wolverine result. Walker tion call for this Mfg Fabricating Co, 596; 391 425 Mich & (1986), Supreme reaffirmed our Court 296 NW2d the long-standing construc- rule of constitutional tion: paramount rule construc- of constitutional given that should be is that constitution tion interpretation great people mass of which it. Jus- they ratified understood when
would have Cooley rule terms which described this tice many times since: have been cited is made for the "A constitution should be people. interpretation minds, great given reasonable it is which themselves, give would it. Coo of the mass City Dist v School 81.” ley’s Const Lim [Traverse General, 405; 9 Attorney NW2d (1971).] meaning way obvious to divine what The most great people themselves would "the mass of the give” phrase be the common any word of would meaning language of the used. It is contended that the clearly 4, § 27 itself indicates that article and enacted to Legislature. initiative laws contrary, To the it takes strained majоrity reading to reach such a result. The colloquy printed in 2 Official draws on a p Record, Convention Constitutional suppos- delegates the discussion of several wherein edly passed position support to the that a the act lends Legislature following submission referendum of the intended to was
go ninety days until after in effect adjournment Legislature’s final If session. why intended, it is to understand difficult not included words article were a few written to express clearly intent. Further article such Frey v DSS by Cynar, J. Dissent expressly provides right of referendum prescribed must be invoked in a manner within ninety days following adjournment legisla- pre- tive It session. does not seem reasonable to right scribe when the of referendum must be expressing invoked, but avoid in article 2 the pursuant effective date of a statute enacted to an initiative unless such omission was so intended.
Review of the Constitutional Convention record study passage reflects much and labor before the of the 1963 Constitution. The words in carefully were selected and structured for their meaning. following intended Some of the reasons *18 support Proposal were submitted of Committee 118: place Provision is also passed made to by laws higher
vote of the plane electors on a than those passed by legislature. people’s the The will should changed by be repeal veto or unless it provided in Only the act. people themselves right have to repeal they what have enacted. Removed from constitutional pro- stаtus are the visions on content and filing petitions, time of canvassing sizes, of petitions, type names on and right legislature of prescribe penalties. Also removed is the date of effectiveness of acts v, which is covered article section 21. All of these legislature matters are left to the However,
the last sentence. last sentence also makes clear that the section is executing self legislature and the cannot thwart popular will by refusing Record, to act. Official [2 Constitutional p Convention 2392.] people Pursuant § 9, 457,272 to article some signed petitions. this state The num- required signatures ber of for initiative under 9,§ 191,000. was The Board of State App 586 162 Mich by Cynar, J. Dissent 395,751 signatures valid certified Canvassers This more than double petitions. ini- required. proposed The of signatures number majority by as submitted approved tiative was law Legislature. The enacted houses of both by five to referendum stayed subjected can of the voters. percent initiative and refer- statutory
Constitutional liberally are to be construed endum than to facilitate rather purpose, their effectuate re- people of those hamper the exercise Dep’t Treasury, rights. Kuhn v served v Board Newsome (1971); 385; 183 NW2d Canvassers, 729; of State 69 Mich (1976). (1976), lv den 397 Mich NW2d 374 propose privilege constitutional be re- legislation enacted should and to have clearly Court unless a restrictive spected by appli- is shown to be the constitution provision cable. of article would construction majority’s It right my of initiative. people’s
restrict law conclusion is not Legislature herein sub- and enacted judgment The trial court’s ject §27. should be affirmed.