LANSING – Hinting broadly it may decide before Thursday’s Board of State Canvassers’ meeting, the Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday that there is nothing in the constitution that limits the size and scope of a constitutional amendment brought by the people while opponents to the Reform Michigan Government Now! proposal argued back that there it is clearly understood that amendments could embrace just embrace a single subject.

Arguing for supporters of the controversial proposal Andrew Nickelhoff said to Judges Bill Schuette, William Whitbeck and Patrick Meter, said that Michigan voters rejected the idea of a judicial veto of ballot proposals in 1913. “There is no limit on what the people could bring,” he said. But if it should be that the proposal is unconstitutional, the “courts have always waited until the people have spoken,” he said.

But Peter Ellsworth, arguing for the opponents, Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution, said it was clearly implied in the constitution and case law that amendments to the constitution had to encompass a single subject.

The constitution directs that the Legislature has to limit proposed constitutional amendments it puts on the ballot to one subject, Ellsworth said. And initiated acts have to be limited to one subject, Ellsworth said, so it makes no sense to suggest that initiated amendments can go beyond a single subject.

In the end the proposal is a complete revision of the constitution, Ellsworth said, which is intended to be handled solely by a constitutional convention.

“The voters are being asked to decide on all 36-plus changes and vote them up or down in one proposal,” he said. Even if the votes like some proposals and reject others they must adopt them all or reject them all, he said. Supporters could have proposed a number of “discrete amendments” so voters could choose separately between the subjects, he said.

The proposal would enact a major change to the legislative redistricting system, cut the size of the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, add local judges, cut the pay of elected officials, require them to file financial disclosures, bar fraudulent efforts to collect petition signatures, and repeal the Mackinac Bridge authority among other things.

There were essentially two separate arguments before the court: the main one on whether the amendment met the constitutional standard as an amendment that could go on the ballot, and the second on whether the opponents had chosen the proper method of attack by asking for a mandamus action by Secretary of State Terri Land to block the proposal from going on the ballot.

Heather Meingast, arguing for Land, said the secretary of state has a “narrowly charged duty” to process the amendment in terms of the petition signatures acquired. To decide the “weighty arguments” of whether the proposal meets constitutional provisions is not in her discretion, Meingast said.

Now, the canvassers can reach decisions as to the form of the petitions, she said. And the opponents could have filed first in circuit court and asked for a ruling on the appropriateness of the petition, she said. In addition, the courts have the power to make decisions on whatever they see as the appropriate solution to the issue, she said.

In terms of the first argument, Nickelhoff argued the proposal did not encompass a complete revision of the constitution. And he argued the voters did not have to be protected from anything that was too big.

But Ellsworth argued that if the proposal was not considered a complete revision then why did the RMGN proposal include a temporary schedule provision that all contracts let under the 1963 constitution would remain in effect. “Why would this clause be needed unless you are looking at this as entirely new?” he said.

With the canvassers scheduled to review the proposal on Thursday, the judges asked specifically when the canvassers’ meeting was slated to begin. And they asked that they be informed if there is any change in that schedule.

Those questions led most in the audience to presume that the court wants to rule on the issue before the Thursday meeting. Why else would the question have even been asked, said Robert LaBrant of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com

a>>