In re Apportionment of the Ontonagon County Board of Supervisors—1967

Michigan Court of Appeals

In re Apportionment of the Ontonagon County Board of Supervisors—1967

156 N.W.2d 51, 9 Mich. App. 349, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1478

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,714

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 156 N.W.2d 51 (In re Apportionment of the Ontonagon County Board of Supervisors—1967) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Apportionment of the Ontonagon County Board of Supervisors—1967, 156 N.W.2d 51, 9 Mich. App. 349, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1478 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

Quinn, J.

Pursuant to the provisions of PA 1966, No 261 (MOLA, §46.401 et seq. [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.359(1) et seq.]), the hoard of supervisors of Ontonagon county adopted and filed an apportionment plan for the election of a board of supervisors for the county. This plan did not provide for one supervisor from each organized township as required by Const 1963, art 7, § 7.¹ Within the statutory time limit and pursuant to PA 1966, No 261, § 6 (MCLA, § 46.406 [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.359(6)]),² a registered voter of the county filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to review such plan. By order dated June 29, 1967, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, invited certain amicus curiae briefs, established deadlines [352]*352for tlie filing of all briefs, set the matter for submission at the October, 1967, session of the Court, and requested all those filing briefs to brief 3 specific questions.³

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance given us by all briefs and the oral arguments.

It is self-evident that this plan and PA 1966, No 261, which authorized the plan, are in direct conflict with Const 1963, art 7, § 7, and that both the plan and statute are unconstitutional under the 1963 Constitution of this State. All those involved in this litigation concede this fact. The inquiry then becomes, is Const 1963, art 7, § 7, in conflict with the United States Constitution?

In spite of the merit of the arguments advanced by those urging an affirmative answer to this question, this Court cannot adopt such arguments as a basis for decision if there is controlling law to the contrary. There is such controlling law. In Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of PA 1966, No 261 (1967), 379 Mich 55, a clear majority of the Supreme Court unreservedly held that Const 1963, art 7, § 7, was constitutional and PA 1966, No 261, unconstitutional, the language of Justice Black in his concurring opinion that advisory opinions are nonprecedential and nonadjudicatory notwithstanding.

We are constrained to hold PA 1966, No 261, and the plan here reviewed unconstitutional and of no effect. This conclusion obviates discussion of the “guideline” question arising from the provisions of PA 1966, No 261, § 4(a) through (h).

[353]*353An appropriate order may enter bnt without costs, a public question being involved.

J. H. Gtllis, J., concurred with Quinn, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quinn, J.

Pursuant to the provisions of PA 1966, No 261 (MOLA, §46.401 et seq. [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.359(1) et seq.]), the hoard of supervisors of Ontonagon county adopted and filed an apportionment plan for the election of a board of supervisors for the county. This plan did not provide for one supervisor from each organized township as required by Const 1963, art 7, § 7.¹ Within the statutory time limit and pursuant to PA 1966, No 261, § 6 (MCLA, § 46.406 [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.359(6)]),² a registered voter of the county filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to review such plan. By order dated June 29, 1967, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, invited certain amicus curiae briefs, established deadlines [352]*352for tlie filing of all briefs, set the matter for submission at the October, 1967, session of the Court, and requested all those filing briefs to brief 3 specific questions.³

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance given us by all briefs and the oral arguments.

It is self-evident that this plan and PA 1966, No 261, which authorized the plan, are in direct conflict with Const 1963, art 7, § 7, and that both the plan and statute are unconstitutional under the 1963 Constitution of this State. All those involved in this litigation concede this fact. The inquiry then becomes, is Const 1963, art 7, § 7, in conflict with the United States Constitution?

In spite of the merit of the arguments advanced by those urging an affirmative answer to this question, this Court cannot adopt such arguments as a basis for decision if there is controlling law to the contrary. There is such controlling law. In Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of PA 1966, No 261 (1967), 379 Mich 55, a clear majority of the Supreme Court unreservedly held that Const 1963, art 7, § 7, was constitutional and PA 1966, No 261, unconstitutional, the language of Justice Black in his concurring opinion that advisory opinions are nonprecedential and nonadjudicatory notwithstanding.

We are constrained to hold PA 1966, No 261, and the plan here reviewed unconstitutional and of no effect. This conclusion obviates discussion of the “guideline” question arising from the provisions of PA 1966, No 261, § 4(a) through (h).

[353]*353An appropriate order may enter bnt without costs, a public question being involved.

J. H. Gtllis, J., concurred with Quinn, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.W.2d 51, 9 Mich. App. 349, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-apportionment-of-the-ontonagon-county-board-of-supervisors1967-michctapp-1968.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack