[EL] "the next voting rights battleground is MI"

[Christopher Thomas]

One important addition to Initiative and Referendum points in the article is a constitutional exception to laws subject to referendum that the MI Supreme Court in 2001 expanded to devour the people’s right to referendum.

MI Const, Art. II, sec 9 provides an exception to referendum:

“The power of referendum does not extend to acts making appropriations for state institutions or to meet deficiencies in state funds…”

In 2001, the MI Supreme Court issued a “rose is a rose is a rose” opinion voiding a referendum petition on an initiated law containing a minimal appropriation. See Michigan United Conservations Clubs v SOS, 464 Mich 359 (2001). In highly partisan legislation it is now common to see a minimal appropriation included to avoid possibility of referendum. Most certainly any petition by the Republicans to enact their “election reform” will include an appropriation.

However, the dissenting opinions point to a legal analysis that protects the intent of the exception and retains an effective referendum provision that the people have already retained for themselves when adopting the constitution.

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210719/de4e8acb/attachment.html>