LANSING ? Citizens Protecting Michigan?s Constitution have filed documents with the court arguing the ballot proposal does not meet the constitutional definition of an initiated amendment and arguing two justices not recuse themselves from hearing the case.

In its appeal, Reform Michigan Government Now asked Justices Stephen Markman and Robert Young Jr. to recuse themselves from hearing the appeal because they would lose their spots on the court and thus be most affected. It had also contended the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to recuse itself from hearing the case because all judges’ economic interests are intertwined with proposals to cut the size of higher level courts and reduce salaries.

The response by Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution stressed the “rule of necessity” in arguing against recusal of any judge or justice because none can be disqualified when all are affected and would be disqualified by recusal arguments.

The briefs were in reaction to the requests supporters of the proposal filed with the high court on Friday.

To the main motion, the group CPMC argued on Tuesday that the Court of Appeals ruled correctly, last week, that the proposal is not an amendment to the Constitution but a wholesale revision. And revisions, the plaintiffs said, can only be enacted when first submitted by a constitutional convention.

The plaintiffs referred to previous Supreme Court opinions in arguing there are fundamental differences between amendments and revisions of the Constitution.

And in referring to a 2001 case which blocked a referendum on legislation expanding concealed weapons rights – that the Legislature had attached appropriations funding to – the plaintiffs argued the Supreme Court had held the state had a duty to determine if a proposal could even be properly put on the ballot.

There are in fact two constitutional impediments to the RMGN being on the ballot, plaintiffs said, the first being that it is a general revision of the Constitution and the second that it embraces more than one subject.

The proposal would enact dozens of changes to the Constitution affecting all three branches of government. The arguments brought to the Supreme Court list 24 such changes; some groups have listed as many as 36.

Supporters of the proposal argue the Court of Appeals created a new law setting limits on what the voters can attempt to amend through an initiative constitutional amendment, a limit the Constitution itself does not expressly put.

But clearly the RMGN is a revision, plaintiffs said, and the court’s have held there are clear differences between amendments and revisions.

The Supreme Court has not indicated when it may hear arguments in the case, or if it will hear arguments, but elections officials note September 5 is the deadline they have to prepare the ballot for the November election.

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

a>>