*1 Township v Scio Smith SMITH v SCIO TOWNSHIP 7, 1987, Lansing. at Decided December Docket No. 98014. Submitted 5, 1988. December incorporate a charter voted to as The electors of Scio taxing authority of the town- and voted to limit the provided ship for in the charter town- board to less than that George brought ship an action in the Smith and others act. against and its officers Court Washtenaw Circuit fraud, claiming for to declare the election void and trustees and that the town- limitation vote was ineffective that the tax taxing authority provided ship in the charter would have 9, notwithstanding or Const art the vote Jr., court, Ager, F. William Headlee Amendment. § defendants, J., holding judgment the vote to granted that was effective and as a charter taxing apply author- not to limit the Headlee Amendment does township incorporated by newly vote of a chartered appealed. Plaintiffs electors. Appeals The Court of held: require not a direct vote Amendment does 1. The Headlee government permit local unit of in order to the electors governmental unit has taxes where the increase The Headlee Amend- the increase. law or charter to newly apply of a to limit the ment does not chartered not, to become a in or after 2. The electors township’s taxing authority to less limit the than five mills. or defects contains omissions 3. a ballot Where References seq., seq., 2d, 141- 122 et Taxation 86 et §§ and Local Am Jur State 143. Counties, 2d, Corporations, Political Municipal and other Am Jur seq., 51. 28 et §§ Subdivisions 2d, seq. 316 et Am Jur Elections §§ Corpora- Elections; Municipal under the Index to Annotations See Taxes; tions; Town. likely purpose, to have misled voters intent as to its remedy is to void the election. Reversed. Danhof, C.J., agrees dissented. He electors could not *2 taxing authority township limit the of the charter board but regard would hold the election valid with to the establishment of a charter — — 1. Taxation Headlee Amendment Constitutional Law. provision The constitutional known as the Headlee Amendment require permit does not a direct vote of the electors order to government a local unit of to increase taxes where the unit has (Const authority by or law charter to the increase 31). 1963, 9, art § Townships Townships — — 2. Charter Taxation. not, may The electors in or to after become a charter township’s taxing authority limit the to less than five mills. Municipal Corporations Townships. — 3. Municipal corporations, including townships, are creatures of powers state and their derive from the state and constitution statutes; power granted they except by no have the state. Townships Townships. — 4. Charter township provides The charter the act shall constitute townships incorporate the charter of the under it and provisions by contains no for amendment charter either (MCL by seq.; the electors or 42.1 board et MSA seq.). et 5.46[1] — — Quo 5. Warranto Elections Burden of Proof. plaintiff quo A in an to action warranto and declare an election’s results void must show that a error or serious fraud occurred (MCL and that it have affected the outcome of the election 27A.4545). 600.4545; MSA — 6. Elections Remedies. likely Where a ballot contains or omissions defects purpose, remedy have misled voters as to its intent and is to void the election. Flintoft), Flintoft, Keusch & P.C. C. (by Peter plaintiff. Etter),
Reading & Etter John L. (by for defen- dant. Township Smith v Scio op Opinion the Court Shepherd C.J., Danhof, L. and C.
Before: Bosman,* JJ. Bosman, question presented primary L.
C. J. Amendment, in this the Headlee appeal whether 31, a art limits Const § level with- preincorporation to its the elec- a vote of the electors when separate out township vote to become general law tors 359; MCL to 1947 PA pursuant 5.46(1) seq. it 42.1 et et hold that seq.; MSA We does not. Township and members
Defendant Scio incorporate Scio Township sought Board Scio township in an effort as a Ann City unwanted annexation prevent therefore resolved Arbor. The board 42.3a; resolution, MCL *3 5.46(3a). disagreement of was petition MSA A citizens, number of the timely filed a 42.3a(2)(b); MSA MCL including plaintiffs. 5.46(3a)(2)(b). incorpora- of the
Defendants submitted of at election primary to the electorate the tion ballot, in accordance August prepared 1986. The 5.46(2), the 42.2; proposi- set forth MCL MSA with as tion follows: PROPOSAL
SCIO TOWNSHIP INCORPORATION Township of Scio as the Shall municipal be a cor- township which shall charter 359 of provisions of Act No. poration subject to the amended, the Acts of Public municipal of such constitute shall corporation? assignment. Appeals by sitting judge, of on Court
* Circuit 384 173 Mich Opinion of the Court Section of act, MCL 5.46(27), permits 42.27; MSA a charter levy taxes not to exceed of the 1% personal prop- assessed valuation all real and erty subject (five township” to taxation in the mills). incorporation, taxing authority Prior township, general of defendant law plaintiffs’ was to 1.16 limited mills. The basis for objection incorporation to charter was their belief upon incorporation the defendant charter acquire board would up to five mills. Defendant board shared plaintiffs’ authority township’s taxing desire to limit plaintiffs, mills; however,
to 1.16 unlike operation the board believed that of the Headlee preclude Amendment would an increase in the expressly in the absence a vote increasing millage. attempt In an to resolve any ambiguity concerning application Amendment, the board added a second proposal to the ballot:
SCIO CHARTER TOWNSHIP MILLAGE LIMITATION PROPOSITION Township If the incorporated of Scio is as the Scio, Township millage Charter shall the be [to] levied said Charter be limited to 1.16
mills? proposition incorporation passed by four incorporation votes, 695 in favor of while voting against. overwhelmingly The electorate approved millage proposition, 1,061 limitation *4 voting against. in favor and 272
Following plaintiffs election, filed this action quo declaratory judgment and seek- warranto (1) ing enjoin of to: certification the results of the (2) August 5, 1985, election; declare that the re- Township 385 Smith v Scio Opinion op the Court (3) void; order that the election were suits of incorporation only resubmitted to be of (4) that, if Town- Scio electorate; and declare township, ship is the board becomes levy up all mills tax on to file to authorized assessed real Township regardless properties personal within Scio and any to of the electors of vote power. limit such taxation (1) first on the the vote court found The trial general permit proposition Township law to was effective the Charter Scio to (2) Amendment Scio, the Headlee and applied Township of Scio limit the so as to until the elec- mills, and 1.16 unless Township expressly increase vote to of Scio tors millage. Ed, 98 Bd of State School Dist v In Waterford (1980), den 328 lv 658, 663; 296 NW2d Mich (1980), stated that this Court 934 specific designed place was Amendment Headlee limitations and that revenues and local on state spending place public purpose towas ultimate using popular court, The trial control. direct under purpose, could that one reasoned this statement separate on a how a vote understand not distinct increase implies an i.e., issue, taxing authority. Thus, in taxes or sepa- require interpreted trial court town- the charter before of the electorate rate vote ship above taxes is authorized a common-law authorized as rate provi- interpretation constitutional On People Canvassers, 323 Mich v Bd of State sions, approval (1949), citing with 523, 529; NW2d Assessors, 143 Attorney Bd of State (1906), General v stated: 73; 106 NW Mich resort, in all the first principle The other *5 AppApp 173 MichMich Opinion of Court a provision cases where constitutional is to be interpreted, signification is to the natural of employed grammatical words in the order and arrangement in which of the framers the instru- and, placed them; ment have regarded, if thus convey meaning, words used volves no different a definite in- absurdity and no contradiction between parts writing, of the same then the mean- ing apparent on the face the instrument is one which liberty alone we are at to say was intended to In conveyed. be such cases there is no room for Cooley construction. on Constitutional (5th ed), 69, pp 70. Limitations operative language The of the Headlee Amend- provides: ment
Units of
hereby prohib-
Local Government are
levying any
ited from
charter when this
creasing
authorized
ratified,
tax not
by
authorized
or
law
or
in-
section
ratified
from
existing
the rate
an
tax
above
rate
by
law or charter when this section is
approval
without the
of majority
a
of the
qualified
electors
that unit of Local Government
thereon.
art
[Const
§ 31.]
plain
language of
prohibits
a local
government
from
a tax in
levying
excess of that
permitted
prohibits
law or charter
and it
in-
creasing the authorized tax rate without approval
But
electors.
nowhere does Headlee require
a direct vote of the
permit
electors
order
unit
local
of government
to increase taxes if the
unit
government
local
has the authority
Bailey
v
law or charter
See
levy
increase.
Muskegon
Comm’rs,
Bd of
Co
808;
122 Mich App
(1983).
Here, proposition which the electors of Scio Township approved only ques- not submitted the tion they of whether shall become town- Smith v Scio op Opinion the Court ship specified but also the charter under which the governed would be in the event electors voted to become a charter Sec- grants tion 27 of the charter author- to the charter board to taxes of up general rule, five mills. As a it is not essen- print proposed tial to the full text of a law on a *6 enough printed ballot; it is sufficient if to iden- tify pur- matter and show its character and the^ pose. p 2d, 26 Am Elections, § 221, Jur Further, 51. prescribes pro- where a statute the form of the posal, strictly the statute should be followed. Id. The to in this case contained mandatory statutory language. There can be no ample doubt that the electors had notice that the proposal, approved, effect of the subject if would be to township provisions to all of the of the township charter act. There is no claim the elec- provided opportunity tors were not with an fully provision. become informed of the act’s To contrary, key issue in the election related to township taxing authority. the tory provision board’s The statu- pertinent part:
states, in Not later than annually, November 1 the town- shall, ship resolution, by adopt budget year shall, for the next fiscal tion, and in that resolu- appropriation make an money of the needed township purposes during ensuing fiscal year of the township provide levy and for a of the necessary amount upon to be raised taxes real personal and property municipal for the purposes of the which levy shall not exceed . . . ofVz of the assessed valuation of 1% all [5 mills] personal real property subject and to taxation .... The electors of a levy increase the tax limitation to not to exceed a total of of the assessed 1% valuation of all real personal property period in the for a 173 Mich Opinion of the Court 42.27; one time. years to exceed 20 at
of not [MCL 5.46(27).] MSA incorporate, the electors also Thus, approved adoption limitation on of a five-mill taxing authority. This does Amendment, since its not clash with the requirement qualified majority elec- that a approve rate has been satisfied. the authorized tors imposes specific limita- Amendment The Headlee tions on without impose taxes additional require approval. not voter It does voter approval where the author- increased tax levies approved. already has been to make the supra. Muskegon Bailey Comm’rs, Co Bd of v taxpayer under the to a available course action levy proposal oppose a tax hearing public appear up at the mills is to to five 5.46(26). budget. 42.26; MSA MCL on to the trial was submitted A second directly as it consid- it hot answer did court reasoning ruling *7 on effect ered its question. dispositive This of the second can, electors after is whether township, limit a charter town- a charter become ship’s taxing mills, the than five to less township act. the charter amount authorized they cannot. We hold townships, including corporations,
Municipal are powers their from and derive of the state creatures They no have and statutes. the state constitution granted by power except Midland the state. that Boundary Twp Comm, 641; 259 401 Mich v State (1977), app 1004; US 98 S 435 326 dismissed NW2d (1978); Eyde Construction L 2d 386 1873; 56 Ed Ct App Twp 802; Meridian, 149 Mich of Charter Co v (1986). Legislature authorized 687 386 NW2d meeting population townships the electors of 389 Smith v Scio Opinion of Court requirement township to select a form of charter government opposed general-law township. ato permitting township But in a as a Legislature charter determined that of form the charter it would is the authorize provided it act, in the charter 359, 1947 PA as amended. Section 1 of that act provides incorporates "each subject as a charter shall be to the provisions act, of this which act shall constitute municipal corporation.” such MCL 5.46(1). provision 42.1; MSA There is no contained within the act for amendment the charter ei- ther or the electors board. statutory It is an rule of established construction express thing that the mention a statute of one implies things. exclusion other similar Sederlund, Moffit 145 17; v Mich 378 NW2d (1986). (1985), By lv den Mich 860 ex providing pressly approval voter of increases to taxing authority, 42.27; the board’s MCL MSA 5.46(27), making while decreases, no mention of Legislature implicitly precluded electors from limiting the to an amount less five than mills. quo
Plaintiffs filed this action
warranto and for
judgment declaring
the election
void.
results
plaintiffs
600.4545;
Under MCL
27A.4545,
MSA
showing
had the burden of
serious error or
fraud occurred and that
it
have affected the
Joseph Twp City
outcome of the election. See St
v
Joseph,
(1964);
6;
St
Having concluded less restrict board’s (2) is five mills and the second ballot than void, impact to be decided is the question the final The two proposal. on the first of this on the result related, the electors were submitted to proposals effect, valid, establishing if having the both taxing author- township limitation on the board’s proposals upon incorporating the electors in that each asked were inconsistent is, however, It limitation. to establish a different not proposals the intent of the was clear taxing and incorporation treat pari read separate as issues. When materia, relating construing done in statutes a common sharing matter or subject to the same Secretary State, purpose, Crawford v (1987), 88, 95; apparent it is 408 NW2d (1) whether were asked to decide the electors (2) all, incorporated at township should be as a charter incorporated should be 1.16-mill limitation on township containing a (3) or taxing authority, township con- as a charter incorporated should be taxing on the board’s taining a five-mill limitation authority. prescribed act not the charter
Had the electors asking used in language to be precise incorporated should be whether power on the electors the if the act conferred *9 Smith v Scio by Danhop, Dissent C.J. taxing authority, possible restrict the board’s it is questions that these three could have been submit- Generally, ted to the proposals in electors a clearer fashion. closely properly that are so related as to dependent may be be submitted as a unit. 26 Am supra, p 2d, § 222, Jur 52. Submitted in the man- they proposal were, ner the second had the effect misleading believing they the electors into had power to reduce the tax limitation to less than approved they proposal. five ifmills the first There is a substantial likelihood that the electors yes proposal they not have voted on the first had proposal known that the second was invalid. Although plaintiffs appeal they contend on that ready testify they have electors were mis- plain trial, led and seek a remand for a the face of the ballot it is from proposals and the record developed below that there was a serious error pertaining purpose to the basic intent and of the proposals. ballot circumstances, Under these appropriate remedy is to void the election. proposals
We therefore hold the election of one are two void. Reversed. J., concurred.
Shepherd, (dissenting). agree Danhof, C.J. I with the ma- jority’s cannot, conclusion that electors after vot- ing incorporate as a charter town- ship, taxing limit that charter board’s mills, to less than five the amount au- By approving thorized the charter act. proposal Scio a charter town- ship, approved adoption the voters also taxing five-mill limit on the board’s au- thority. proposal Therefore, the second to limit the 1.16 mills was null. by Danhop, Dissent C.J. goes
I dissent because the on to void majority regard proposals. the election with to both support record does not the relief which the major- granted. uphold has I the election with would in regard to the first the absence of evidence voters were misled second proposal. Although proposals a nexus between arguably apparent, majority should have fashioned a based on facts reflected remedy *10 record, presumption regarding not on a what thought when vot- probably they voters were ing.
The record also does not reveal whether the Scio higher millage Board has levied a than the former 1.16 mill limit. If the taxes, plaintiffs’ remedy politi- does raise then They cal. can vote for different board members the next election.
Finally, the record does not disclose what action I township. Scio has taken as a charter appropriateness majority’s decision be- possible repercussions. By voiding cause of its made a charter election which Scio has also voided the actions which Scio majority might have taken as a charter
I hold that the election is valid with would regard regard to the first and void with the second.