*1 Secretary Ill of State. v. SECRETARY OF STATE. HAMILTON Initiative—Constitutionality Law — Pro- of Constitutional 1. posed Not be Determined Will on Mandamus. Amendment compel proceedings secretary of In mandamus proposed to the electorate a to submit amendment State Constitution, the court will not the State determine proposed legislation or not said whether violates Constitution. Federal Adding Legislation Burdens Constitutional Pro- 2. Same — Void. cedure 204, 1923, No. Pub. Acts far Act amends or is In so procedure amending with the for conflict 17, (Art. 2), and in so far § the Constitution as it adds procedure to the constitutional burdens additional way procedure prescribed give to the and must void the Constitution. J., JJ., Wiest, dissenting. Clark, C. and Fellows compel Hamilton to James Charles J. Mandamus State, secretary DeLand, proposed to submit to the State Constitution. Submitted amendment (Calendar 31,197.) No. January 1924. Writ 8,May 1924. granted Moore, plaintiff. for
&Moore Dougherty, Attorney General, B. Andreiv Clare Attorney General, for Deputy Retan, defendant.. “(dissenting). We have J. before us Fellows, application compel mandamus again an to. secretary to submit electorate the so- amendment the State “parochial school” Con- called under section 2 of initiated stitution See of the Constitution. Hamilton v. article 439; Mich. Hamilton v. Secretary State, 204 Secre- Michigan Reports. Secretary State, tary Hamilton 371; Mich. State, Hamilton 31; Mich. *2 in 541. When the was before us 221 Mich. Secretary State, gave I v. Mich. Hamilton of voting against my the issuance of reason doubt, I writ. I enter- then entertained no now doubt, proposed tain no that the amendment conflicts with Amendment Federal the Fourteenth Con- fully generally appreciate stitution. I that ex- pected acquiesce that members of this court will in majority by temporary announced a of this results every-day tribunal. in This must be so work of this court. But occasions will arise when convictions questions, are so on constitutional fixed funda- ought yield mentals, that one not to to this doctrine comity. my presents judgment of The instant case strengthened such an occasion. I am in the view yield I question by not on this fundamental Supreme States, fact Court of the United interpreter Constitution, the final of the Federal has writing opinion of since sustained the views expressed. therein Meyer Nebraska,
In the recent case of v. State of (43 Sup. 625), 262 U. S. Ct. court had before prohibited a statute of the State of Nebraska which foreign teaching language parochial in a passed eighth school to. students who had not grade. error, Plaintiff a teacher in a Lutheran parochial school, taught had language the German to a passed grade. had student who He was con- victed, and the conviction was affirmed and the statute Meyer held valid in v. (187 107 Neb. N. 100). W. He reviewed the decision of the State Supreme court in the Court of the United States and then right foreign insisted that his language teach private liberty school was- secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitu- tion. held statute was invalid and the decision oe McReynolds, reversed. Mr. Justice court the State court, said: for the who wrote taught language in school “Plaintiff in error right to teach part occupation. thus His his engage him so instruct parents and their to are within liberty of the children, think, we * * * legislature has Evidently the
Amendment. calling of materially with the attempted to interfere opportunities language teachers, modern power of acquire knowledge, and with the pupils to their own.” parents control education of disposed of similar the same time that court At (Bartels of Iowa Ohio statutes States Iowa, Ohio, Bohning Pohl v. State State 628]). Ohio, Sup. That the 262 U. Ct. S. [43 of right liberty private is a teach schools secured *3 by question the this amendment was sole by opinion emphasized before court is of Mr. He said: Justice Holmes in his dissent. only question adopted “The the means is whether
deprive
liberty
by
teachers of
secured to them
14th Amendment.”
interpretation
This
of the Federal Constitution is
binding
opinion
on this court and
me in the
confirms
Meyer
Nebraska,
referred to. That
above
v. State supra,
court,
judges
the view of the
three
also
sitting,
Society
in the recent case of the
the Sisters
Holy
Mary
Pierce,
Names
v.
Jesus and
31, 1924),
296
(decided
Fed. 928
March
is shown
typewritten copy
opinion
us,
a
of the
before
in which
validity
of a
case
similar
enacted in
Oregon
was before
the court.
to call attention
I desire
dealing
three cases
with
right of
defendant
raise the constitutional
proceeding
for mandamus.
The recent
State,
Davies,
case of
ex rel.
White,
227 —Mich—8. Michigan Reports. 114 to the their ordinance electorate. Defendants based ground refusal on the in- that the ordinance would be objection Disposing valid if that such enacted. made, defense could not the court: be it was said proposition “The that a not writ of mandate will compel respondents issue to electors submit city of even if proposed void, a ordinance that would be approved by majority electors, a too clear for discussion or citation of authorities.” State, Wiles, Williams, (133 ex rel. 232 Mo. 1, 1060), W. L. S. R. A. was held [N. S.] constitutionality might of a an statute raised proceedings officer in mandamus where such officer acting attorney general, advice of the University Utah, Candland, ex rel. Utah, (104 285, R. Pac. 24 L. A. [N. S.] Rep. 834), recognizing 140 Am. St. court while that a subordinate ministerial officer could inter- pose proceeding, defense in a mandamus superior directly responsible officer people office, conduct of his in that case the members the board of commissioners, land could do so. With- going particular question, out further into this I think my the writ denied for the reasons stated opinion. former questions presented
But there are other should be decided. This necessitates a further state- August 29, 1923, plaintiff deposited ment. On approved defendant in form theretofore *4 containing 56,282 signatures which were canvassed bearing signatures 54,362 and those were found to con- requirement. form to the The number signatures necessary to authorize the submission of 58,367. September the amendment was On 7th and aggregating petitions upwards, October 31st other 10,000 signatures in the same form were filed. In- 1923, 204, Act the meantime Pub. Acts N.o. had taken acting effect. Plaintiff is a member of and for a 115 of State. act. purview of that coming within the committee pro- its complied with committee nor the Neither he comply with did not petitions tendered visions upon advice of Acting thereof. 3 section these to canvass declined attorney general defendant effect. took the act petitions tendered after that Act No. by plaintiff’s It counsel is insisted here entirety sec- 1923, in its because 204, void is Pub. Acts (the provision Constitution 2 17 tion of article legisla- initiative) and that is for nullity. subject It insisted is is further on the tion in because conflict with section is invalid the act 5 section 3 of the Constitution of article title, and that or at act not within thereof is questions will con- void. These this section least the order stated. sidered difficulty agreeing plaintiff’s no
We have provid- provision of the Constitution counsel through ing the initiative is self- amendment its Legislation imperatively necessary executing. give It can not said that is a it effect. tendency legislature. The of modern to the direction holding towards decision is
self-executing. The rule reason for the rule supreme court of California is well stated Howard, (64 692, Cal. Pac. Winchester Rep. 153). Am. It St. was there Pac. said: “As to the whether is self- executing, note, outset, it is well at the presumption precisely is not as it would have been presented had been such a matter for consideration years fifty first State constitutions were ago. When the Federal Constitution and formed, the idea of a was, merely constitution that it outlined a government, provided departments for certain and some officers functions, and defined their secured some absolute and rights citizens, inalienable left but all matters policy departments of administration and law-making power wholly created. was vested *5 Michigan Reports. legislature. in- in the to the assurances of Save as against rights government, direct dividual government operation only. but limitations upon was the constitution part And such assurances themselves in governmental powers. upon “Latterly, however, changed. all this has been Through love of legislatures of the and the natural distrust people power, have in their con- inserted statutory many provisions of a character. stitutions directly by laws, people These are fact but made legislature, they instead strued and con- are to be enforced, respects, though they as all ** * were statutes. “Under it was natural that former conditions presume provision court a should constitutional department addressed to some officer or government, lature, legis- power or limited the empowered, perhaps directed, or certain legislation, carry policy. into effect Recently presumption “Now the reverse. adopted contain State constitutions extensive codes of laws, statutes operate directly upon people intended to say self-executing do. To that these are not may sovereign tobe refuse to execute the will people. ruling. policy requires The different a different say is, I should the rule now that such con- provisions self-executing stitutional when must be held to be they given can effect without reasonable legislation, aid clearly appears unless it that such was not intended.” legislation may necessary
While not be to effectuate validly and none it, enacted conflict with it does not follow legislation supplemental to and in aid of the con- provision may stitutional This, not be enacted. I think, is settled adjudicated the text-writers p. cases. In 12 C. J. 729 it is said: “Constitutional when there is a they manifest go intention that into effect, ancillary immediate legislation and no is neces- sary to enjoyment given, of a or the enforce- ment constitutional duty of a imposed. right granted by That a provision may pro- be better or further *6 op of itself legislation by does supplementary tected being self- from provision in prevent self-executing of executing character ; nor does necessarily legislation preclude provision constitutional right secured.” protection better it is said: p.L. 6 R. C. legis- however, may details, be left for the “Minor nature impairing lature without that Thus it has been held provisions. by defining which members the constituencies clauses elected, assembly be establish- general shall right suffrage, requisite for the qualifications ing the although self-sustaining, self-executing and may lie apportionment legislative action the left for there is ratio, among in a fixed the counties of members holding elections, regulations for making of the canvassing votes, the certification of the provision Similarly is self- a constitutional result. particular provides officials executing which by fees, although salary instead of paid be should the determination salary is left the amount of the legislature.” Cooley’s is thus stated Constitutional rule Ed.), p. (7th 121: Limitations may provision be said to be self- “A constitutional executing supplies if it a sufficient rule means may enjoyed protected, right given imposed may duty be enforced.” or the considering self-executing pro- author
But securing exemptions homestead of constitutions visions say: page 122 this to has legislation cases, may “Perhaps in such be de- even by way providing sirable, convenient remedies for right secured, regulating or of protection of the right exact so its limits claim of the understood; legislation all be known and be but such must provision, to the constitutional and in subordinate purpose, and must not of its furtherance attempt it.” or embarrass particular narrow holding early in consonance with the of this This Michigan Reports. Baldy, case Mich. court of Beecher v. through court, speaking where Mr. Justice said: Christiancy, fully “We admit the constitutional express prohibition against
is an a forced sale on ex- ecution, describes; and, of the homestead which it prohibition, legislation give no it needs it effect. And if tract of which a homestead out is value one from greater quantity, greater claimed consist of a or be Constitution, yet than allowed if it be homestead, which includes a though given, which the of selection is legislation might further necessary in order to *7 enable selection, the debtor to make a it valid would duty be right, the protect of the to till court the such necessary legislation had; should be to see prohibition violated, of the Constitution not and was that no sale should be made under execution which away right would take of selection. constitutional neglect The legislature, case, perform in such to duty, its theirs.” neglect would not authorize the courts In the Mabon, (50 case Willis v. Minn. 281, 16 L. A. Rep. 626), W. R. N. 31 Am. St. provision had it a the court before constitutional creating liability. provision stockholders’ The did expressly provide remedy a it and was insisted that it self-executing. was not The court held that provision was and that it was not necessary provide remedy. that it should a After so holding, it was said: present necessary “Hence in the case it was not expressly given remedy constitution have a by which corporation might a creditor of the enforce liability the such a of a stockholder. If it in fact created liability former, the latter in favor there would not framing be the least trouble in a proper complaint in an action it. enforce Of course, remedy always is control within the
legislature,
changed
they
fit,
and
pro-
see
only
adequate.
vided
entirely
it remains
It is
com-
op
remedy,
statutory
provide
a
and
petent for them
new
exclusive,
they
fit.”
if
see
make
Washington
court of
considered
supreme
The
legislature
laws
of a self-
right
to enact
in aid
provision in
executing
of Reeves
the case
(42
625),
it was
Anderson,
Pac.
tainly declaring act hesitate before solemn we should ground. legislature upon invalid seen, harmony spirit act, have with the as we is constitution, object exer- right further its right cise available. a constitutional' make such * ** legislature opinion competent “In for the our provision pointing supplement the conferred out constitution manner which the might exercised, by prescribing city guidance of the council in relation rules for the thereto.” County Caldwell, Judge, rel. ex Okla. 964), supreme court (98 Pac. of that State
said: self-executing, legis- where “In cases *8 desirable, by way may providing lation still a remedy facilitating specific and and more the convenient rights carrying into or execution of effect the se- making every definite, abuses. cured, step safeguarding and prevent in legislation, to Such same so harmony spirit however, must be object constitution, to further and its the exercise right available, more and and make constitutional it rights reserved, curtail or laws must such not specified.” the limitations exceed State, Rep. 6 Okla. Nowakowski v. Crim. And 351), said: Pac. it was (116 self-executing provision every “It of a con- is not power legislative upon the stitution which exhausts Michigan Reports. subject with many which it deals. There legislation where pro- in aid of or in addition to Certainly vision permissible both is and desirable. legislature derogation nothing can of the enact provision; provision, in but unless such being self-executing, addition to a limitation is also upon power legislature, may of the it enact laws extending aid of provision and in addition to the its terms.” State, Shepard,
In Superior Court, ex rel. 60 Wash. (111 233), Pac. it was said: right “The right, given vote is people to certain citizens withheld from others. But the manner in which the franchise shall purely exercised statutory. is is not It within the power legislature of the destroy franchise, but it regulate ballot, long control and so as the right destroyed not is it or made so inconvenient that impossible follows, then, exercise it. It that that the power destroy unnecessarily which does impair or right must be held be within the constitutional legislature.” 26§ Benson, (91 577), Stevens 50 Or. Pac. question court had before it the of whether the initia- tive provisions and referendum constitution self-executing State were and if so whether the legislature pass legislation. supplementary could It was held that legislation
that the
valid.
It was there said:
“But,
when a
of the constitution is self-
legislation
executing,
may be desirable for the better
protection
right
provide
secured and to
a more
specific and
remedy
carrying
convenient
out such
provision, and
plain
it
the statute
was intended for
purpose,
reduces to
makes
system
simplifies
proceeding;
every
step definite, as
placing safeguards
well as
around
protect
abuse,
from
curtailing
without
placing
or
upon
undue burdens
its exercise.”
also,
See,
Gherna
(146
where the referendum consideration, pointed out the were this court under secretary prevent power want of of State to filing petitions. of fraudulent We there held provisions of the Constitution and it was there said: “The section of the Constitution under consideration is trary, principles. not a of con- mere statement On the points steps out in detail the various to be referring legislature an taken act of the to the electors, undoubtedly intends that conduct return of election and the canvass and votes shall general be in with the laws of the accordance legislature And the made certain in its session general laws, with the to the election amendments fully purpose adapting re- evident them more quirements Perhaps referendum. further legislature may action be advisable aid of provision.” 1923,
Act No. Pub. Acts contains some of the corrupt practice found in acts which have quite uniformly upheld proper been aids to the franchise, of the honest exercise elective secured, by By verity the Constitution. section 3 petitions required entirety the act in its adoption policy aiding public safeguarding of a rights honest exercise of secured the Con- preventing stitution imposition fraudulent on the secretary public generally. State and It was beyond power legislature to enact it.
This leaves consideration the of whether the act inis conflict with 21 of article 5 section Constitution. is as title of the act follows: require committees, “An act to clubs and other or- ganizations purpose initiating legis- formed for the lation or petition, constitutional amendment *10 Reports. Michigan [May- regulate reports file certain such the conduct organizations.” committees, clubs or upon ground assault act aimed The on this particularly at section it be- which is insisted is yond scope If the title. we construe this section applicable by petitions, be filed to all whether com- mittee, private club or individuals doubtless the section by plaintiff’s would fail under the authorities cited counsel their brief. of the act But the balance If, would still be and would valid. workable be hand, by the other as we construe this section limited only applicable the title petitions as by organizations filed committees, and other clubs purpose for the initiating legislation formed or con- by stitutional petition, amendments section would be valid. The rule too well to need understood citation of constructions authorities where two of a equally statute are permissible, one of which would valid, render act other of which would invalid, it adopted render construction should give Following which validity. would it as this rule we by should we hold that section limited title 3 is so against objection limited it is valid as urged. here
I think the writ should be denied. Wiest, J., J. Fellows, concurred Clark, C. by J. I concur in the result reached Justice Fellows for the first reason discussed him. I am not in accord with the conclusions Bird, J. reached this case Mr. Justice FELLOWS. He length has question considered at some whether proposed legislation violates the Federal Constitu- tion. I question do not think this con- passed upon by sidered and this at time. court proposed If the sanction do not receive Secretary of State. unnecessary pass upon it will be the electorate validity. their suggests why itself we should reason
Another it. same consider on a here- circumstances similar
raised under petitioner, and we refused filed the same tofore arose made a situation until consider necessary. 212 Mich. Hamilton v. *11 questions in that refusing case In to consider the 31. by :Moore it said Chief Justice may whether in case decide “If defendant this the and thus proposed is constitutional the amendment any May in in which it, he not case refuse to submit proposed judgment amendment it is his the may If ex- it? he decline to submit unconstitutional going than much farther power, is hot he ercise this go him to ? officer authorize as a ministerial his duties majority a proposed legal receive If the of amendment should enough cast, then be time votes there will the any provision Federal Con- inquire of the whether time comes violated. Until been stitution has any opinion to the un- express decline we must constitutionality proposed amendment.” of the concurring opinion Sharpe, a wrote who Justice Mr. following observations: case, made the against judicial the power of veto the “To exercise adoption its constitutionality before of an amendment justification in finds no its enactment a law before or assumption by the necessity, is an unwarranted people in the reserved Con- power of the courts legislature. by the it on or conferred stitution secretary pre- plainly duty “The proposed all amendments submit He ‘shall scribed. * * * adoption by people or re- for initiated Upon filing of jection compliance herewith/ him to duty devolves on ascertain petition, require- complies whether the same and canvass determine He must ments. by requisite signed number it has been whether of prescribed it is the form voters, and also whether qualified There is properly verified. no and is Michigan Reports. the amend- determine whether provision that he shall Con- the Federal provision ment contravenes required to submit such stitution, or directed is he nor attorney general for decision. per- one, and his duty purely a imposed is ministerial express mandatory by the formance of it is made * * * language italicized. provision which is suggestion a even “In none of these do find cases we duty im- performance that posed decide a constitutional of the ministerial may the defendant on him the Constitution determining question. In and in ascer- in form whether is sufficient taining of a sufficient number whether the names required signed thereto, to in- voters are he language provision, terpret of the constitutional juris- proposition in the but is a novel science say may pass upon consti- prudence to he * * * tutionality proposed. amendment express implied power no or “This court has judicial nullify prospective a law veto to in futuro by properly bill before the fore-shadowed introduced legislature, nor, of the the electors analogy, proposed amendment properly presented by petition Constitution pass upon. opinion our it is neither duty proceeding nor the of this court in this pass upon constitutionality to which has not amendment *12 been, now, is not and never become part of our Constitution.” cogent very refusing reasons for to consider Some question at can this time be in found Mr. Justice opinion Anway Railway Co., v. 211 Mich. Fellows’ 26). (12 opinions 592 A. L. R. Since these were October, 1920, unchanged, written the conditions are appears why no any reason we should reach now other or different conclusion. argues
Plaintiff provisions the constitutional with self-executing reference to the initiative are supplemental legislation need no to make them work- is, therefore, able. It 204, contended that Act No. 1923, Pub. Acts is without force. This court has held on two former occasions that these constitutional provisions self-executing. Thompson v. Secre- op Secretary Hamilton 512; State, tary Mich. And Mr. Justice State, 541. 221 Mich. Fellows this, self-executing. In view of they are concedes aspect unnecessary further this to consider will argues, however, Fellows, Mr. Justice of the case. thereof, authority support that even and cites some self-executing legislature provisions though are by throwing safe right supplement them has operation guards from protect their around them to purpose Conceding dishonesty. fraud right, if, in legislature argument has this that the doing, additional burdens so it amends or annexes operation then as outlined the Constitution provisions are in conflict the Constitution go farther than this. void. The cited no cases they go beyond legislation If is void. Louis Ky. (46 Commonwealth, ville, etc., S. R. Co. v. 598, 541). 707, 210, A. It is L. R. W. 47 S. W. State, County Judge, 22 Caldwell, said in ex rel. (98 964), Pac. that: Okla. 712 only limitation, expressly “The in- unless otherwise _
dicated, legislation supplementary guaranteed provisions is that not be placed shall curtailed or burdens undue thereon.” proper If we consider this be the view law 204, must then we examine the of Act No. 1923, they Pub. Acts and determine amend whether imposed by or add additional burdens those the con- provision. stitutional 2, prerequisites prescribed by
The article section are: pro- 1. text shall the full include
posed signed amendment, per not less than ten cent, qualified voters of the and be filed *13 secretary with the of State. petition 2. form shall consist of sheets such being printed top such or written at thereof Michigan Beports. designated heading prescribed or shall secretary of State. qualified petition signed by voters 3. shall be Such only person with the address of residence persons signing the and the date of same. of of petitions, 4. To of such consist .each sheets, one or the affidavit more shall be attached stating circulating same, the electors signature that each person genuine signature of the is the thereto knowledge signing same, and that to the best person signing petition belief of the affiant each signing qualified was at the time of elector. requirements complied these When with petitioner is entitled to have the submitted n the electorate. .
If complied of Act No. 204 are prerequisites with the are: (a) It any committee, shall be unlawful for club or organization other circulate, or cause to be circu- lated, any petition constitutional amendment without legislation, any to initiate or for having first filed secretary of State a certificate subscribed sworn to secretary president of such committee, organization, setting club or other forth purpose committee, of such organization, club or and the name and address each of the .officers thereof, separate of each units or branches thereof. (b) any Before petition amendment shall secretary be filed with the of State presented shall be village proper city, or town- ship clerk or clerks. (c) duty Whose compare shall be the names appearing being qualified thereon as legal names voters, residing in city, village such clerk’s or town- ship, registration with the book in his office. (d) And to attach to said his certificate to the effect that he comparison, has made such and that persons appear whose names qualified thereon are legal city, village voters his township, or as the case may be. (e) ifOr the said clerk finds some of the names appearing qualified legal thereon are not the names of *14 op village city, certify' township, of his or voters to he shall naming fact, persons. such such twenty (/) days filing any Within of after the legislation, petition to initiate or for a constitutional amendment, committee, organization the or club hav- ing charge thereof, of circulation the shall file with the secretary full, account, and State true detailed and by and treasurer statement thereof, setting subscribed sworn the every money forth each and sum by committee, or disbursed said or received the club organization, or or unit branch thereof receipt, purpose, date of each the name of such person received, paid, from to whom whom or and the object purpose for or which disbursed. (g) unpaid statement shall also set forth the Such obligations, etc. debts secretary (h) shall The State furnish organizations committees, clubs other blanks in attorney approved general, form suitable for required. hereinbefore statements n . Section of Act No. 204 makes a distinction be- and committees, individuals clubs and tween other organizations. The constitutional makes no individuals, help If with distinction. of one com- mittee, requisite names, should secure number comply the committee should fail with section secretary probably justified would 1, the refusing petition. require- to submit the This not mentioned provisions, ment clearly imposed an additional burden on those circulating petitions. are who n , c, d, prerequisites clearly and e. These an they substitution and impose added amendment impose expenditure duties, money an and also require. do not provides that the affidavit one Constitution who they signed by quali- circulates the says Act No. 204 voters will suffice. fied is not you sufficient, present petitions shall to the several cities, villages hundred clerks of several and town- Michigan Resorts. compare them they State, and shall in the ships attempt to amend not an registration Is this lists. will by legislation substitute the Constitution legis- legislature? clear And is *15 on those burden provisions impose an additional lative petitions petitions? If the charge who have and clerks hundred are be several to submitted to search, who after a their certificates obtained they be services, pay how much shall for these and signed 100,000 paid. Suppose petitions were they city Detroit, after- people and in the city clerk, who will do be submitted to wards long suppose work, And and it it? how will take do certify unless and clerk refuses make the search one If no fees. someone will become for the liable certified, liable, are not offers become names secretary petition this will refuse the of State imposed reason ? Is not an additional burden legislature are amend- on those who desirous ing way? the Constitution in this
/, g very impor- requirements are not and h. These tant, they not im- but burdens are likewise additional posed by procedure. the constitutional
It provision will be noted that the constitutional requires signed by qualified persons. to be legislative requirement signing The persons that the qualified legal must be voters. Under the constitu- tional procedure young man or woman who had majority upwards reached his or her of four months sign qualified petition. before election would be legislative they procedure Under the would not qualified registered they voters, unless as also qualified legislative well qualification voters. would, therefore, disqualify thousands newof voters signing petitions, from entitled to who would be sign under the procedure. This would likewise be true of the had of voters who thousands changed voting precincts since the last election. But op argued qualified qualified it voters and legal thing. voters mean the same The answer legislature prescribe if this is not intended to had qualification, why inject a different did it the word “legal” qualification prescribed in addition to the * legis- procedure? clearly the constitutional This is unjust lative amendment and is an discrimination against against the new voters and those who have changed voting precincts their last since the election.
This court on indicated to what has two occasions extent provision the constitutional under consideration might by legislative be affected acts. procedural “The constitutional contains
rules, regulations
limitations;
maps
the course
way
end;
accomplishment
marks the
for the
of an
legislative
it summons no
elimi-
aid
will brook no
requirements,
grants
nation or
restriction
its
rights
complied
must be
expressed,
if
conditions
its
*16
procedure
with and its
followed its mandate
obeyed.
provisions
prospective
in
Its
are
operation
self-executing.”
Secretary
Hamilton v.
State,
227 —Mich—9. Beports. Michigan [May- here, how- government. They representative organic the State part law of
ever, and are a its birth found respected. initiative and must be made repeatedly political parties in the fact their and out promises to the both electorate legislation for platforms pass favor certain As soon popular which there was a demand. forgotten, and promises election was over their promises These no them. effort was made to redeem elector- forgotten that the were made so often and then took matters through desperation ate at last sheer a constitutional into its own hands and constructed changes Con- procedure could effect legislation bring without stitution and desired about legislature. mood It in this aid of the was gave birth electorate persuaded I am under consideration. of this view that the of the electorate was the intention legislature any way the con- should meddle in procedure stitutional amend the Constitution. fittingly following that: It said in cases provision designed “A remove an existing mischief as de never construed pendent legislative efficacy for its operation Morley Thayer, 737; People will.” 3 Fed. Rum sey, 14. 44; Williamson, (Miss.) 64 Ill. How. Brien v. My conclusion is that far so as Act No. 204 amends or is in pro- conflict with the constitutional amending cedure Constitution, and in far so itas adds pro- additional burdens to the constitutional *17 cedure it give way is void and must procedure prescribed by am, I Constitution. therefore, favor issuing prayed the writ plaintiff, but without costs. J.,
Sharpe, Bird, concurred J. McDonald, Moore, Steere, JJ., concurred in the result.