LANSING – Governor Rick Snyder has asked the Michigan Supreme Court for a wide-ranging advisory opinion on the constitutionality of taxing pensions from public sector jobs that will take place under the tax legislation he signed into law.

Snyder’s request, filed Tuesday, should short-circuit an expected attempt by public employees to file litigation against the move to subject public sector pensions to the income tax for the first time. Advisory opinions carry the same legal weight as a standard Supreme Court opinion.

The request asks the court, which has a 4-3 majority of justices nominated by the Republican Party, to rule on several issues:

? Does taxing public sector pension income violate the prohibition in Article IX, Section 24 of the Constitution on impairing pensions offered by the state or its political subdivisions?

? Does the tax violate Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution barring any impairment of contracts?

? Does basing income tax exemptions on total household resources or age and total household resources violate Article IX, Section 7 of the Constitution, which bars a graduated income tax?

? Does determining eligibility for the exemption to the pension tax based on a person’s date of birth violate the equal protection clauses of Article I, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

“Prompt review of these questions would be greatly appreciated as it will provided needed direction to me and the Legislature as to whether further reforms to the tax code are necessary to solve Michigan’s fiscal crisis,” Snyder wrote in a letter to Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. “In addition, it is anticipated that other interested parties will want to participate in the merits briefing of this request, and if so, I welcome those parties to raise any additional questions bearing on the act’s validity.”

The Constitution, under Article III, Section 8, empowers the governor or either house of the Legislature to request the Supreme Court issue an opinion on “important questions of law upon solemn occasions as to the constitutionality of legislation after it has been enacted into law but before its effective date.”

Supreme Court spokesperson Marcia McBrien said there is no set schedule on handling advisory opinions, but generally the court issues them before the law in question takes effect.

McBrien said the request is the 26th since 1967. The last one came in 2006 when the House asked for an opinion on the constitutionality of the state’s voter identification law.

Snyder, asked Thursday about why he made the request, said, “I just thought it was good efficient operations to say let’s go ask for an advisory opinion now and hopefully put that issue to bed as soon as possible.”

And an official in Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office said if the court decides to hear the case it could save as many as four years of waiting for a court case to reach a conclusion. If the Supreme Court does hear the case and decides the tax is unconstitutional, a decision should come by December. That would mean the state could make changes to the 2011-12 budget before it got out of control, the official said.

Mary Pollock, legislative representative for Michigan State Employee Retirees Association, said there’s a different reason for wanting to wait. Three Supreme Court seats are on the ballot in 2012, and the Republican majority on the court is at risk.

“He wants to have a Supreme Court opinion now rather than wait until after the November 2012 election when he may not have as favorable a Michigan Supreme Court as he has right now,” she said. “That is why he has asked for it rather than waiting for the lawsuit.”

Pollock said the group is confident the law violates the constitution and planned to file a lawsuit, but having it go straight to the Supreme Court is fine too.

“We say bring it on,” she said. “We’re going to challenge this one way or the other.”

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

a>>