Pillon v. Attorney General

77 N.W.2d 257, 345 Mich. 536, 1956 Mich. LEXIS 408
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMay 14, 1956
DocketCalendar 46,630
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 77 N.W.2d 257 (Pillon v. Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pillon v. Attorney General, 77 N.W.2d 257, 345 Mich. 536, 1956 Mich. LEXIS 408 (Mich. 1956).

Opinion

Boyles, J.

Plaintiff filed this petition in this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants attorney general, secretary of State, director of elections and the board of State canvassers to approve a certain form of a petition, “Exhibit A,” which the plaintiff had submitted to the defendants, and which he desired to circulate to obtain a sufficient number .of signatures of qualified and registered electors of the State to propose a constitutional amendment relative to garnishment. The defendants refused to approve “Exhibit A,” taking the position that the law •did not require them, or any of them, to approve the form of a petition to submit to the electors for signatures a proposal for a constitutional amendment until after it had been circulated and signatures •of the electors obtained, and had been filed with the secretary of State or the board of State canvassers for checldng, and approval.

Plaintiff asks that this Court issue “a writ of mandamus * * * compelling the respondents * * * to approve Exhibit A.” Plaintiff’s petition for mandamus, in that respect, is inept. The controlling question here for decision, as posed by the briefs, is whether it is the clear legal duty of the defendants, or some one or more of them, to consider and pass upon the form of a petition to be submitted to the electors, proposing a constitutional amendment to be voted upon, and to designate or prescribe a form for such a petition and the heading to be printed or written at the top thereof, *539 before it is circulated, before tbe signatures of qualified and registered electors have been obtained, and before the petition is finally filed for checking and approval prior to its submission to the electors to be voted upon at the next election.

Unless a clear legal duty has been imposed by law on the defendants, or some one or more of them, plaintiff’s petition for mandamus should be denied. It is a discretionary writ which does not issue unless there is a plain, positive duty to perform the asserted duty, and a clear legal right of the petitioner to the performance of that duty. McLeod v. State Board of Canvassers, 304 Mich 120; Janigian v. City of Dearborn, 336 Mich 261; St. Ignace City Treasurer v. Mackinac County Treasurer, 310 Mich 108 (156 ALR 589); Fellinger v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 313 Mich 289; DeYoung v. State Land Office Board, 316 Mich 61; Kosiba v. Wayne County Board of Auditors, 320 Mich 322; City of Berkley v. Township of Royal Oak, 320 Mich 597; Bateham v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Fund Board, 333 Mich 264; State Highway Commissioner v. Ottawa Circuit Judge, 339 Mich 390.

Of course it is apparent at the outset that there could be no claim of any such duty at the common law. The answer to the precise question here for consideration must be found in constitutional or statutory provisions, if at all. It depends on Michigan Constitution (1908), art 17, § 2, as amended in April, 1941; and, also, in part, on PA 1955, No 239. *

The applicable provisions of said article 17, § 2, as amended at the April election in 1941, are:

“Petitions of qualified and registered electors proposing an amendment to this Constitution shall be filed with the secretary of State or such other person or persons hereafter authorized by law to re *540 ceive same at least 4 months before the election at which snch proposed amendment is to be voted upon. * * * Upon receipt of said petition the secretary of State or other person or persons hereafter authorized by law shall canvass the same to ascertain if such petition has been signed by the requisite number of qualified and registered electors, and may in determining the validity thereof, cause any doubtful signatures to be checked against the registration records by the clerk of any political subdivision in which said petitions were circulated, for properly determining the authenticity of such signatures. If the secretary of State or other person or persons hereafter authorized by law to receive and canvass same determines the petition is legal and in proper form and has been signed by the required number of qualified and registered electors, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electors at the next regular election at which any State officer is to he elected. An official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition shall be made by the secretary of State or such other person or persons as shall hereafter he authorized at least 2 months prior to such election. * * * The petition shall consist of sheets in such form and having printed or written at the top thereof such heading as shall be designated or prescribed by the secretary of State, or such other person or persons hereafter authorised by law to receive, canvass and check, the same.”

The concluding part of said section 2 on which the plaintiff must rely, is italicized. Does it impose a clear legal duty upon the secretary of State or any of the other defendants in this case, to pass upon (or approve?) the form of the petition (Exhibit A) which the plaintiff presented to them with the request that it be approved; and does it impose upon them, or- any of them, a clear legal duty to designate or prescribe the form of such a petition, and the heading to be printed or written at the top thereof, before it is submitted to the electors? If so, such *541 a clear legal duty must be found in the cited section of the Michigan Constitution (1908), as amended, or in some statutory requirement enacted in pursuance thereof, and in accordance therewith.

Some changes in article 17, § 2, bearing on the question involved here, were made by the amendment in 1941. Prior to the amendment it read, in part, as follows:

“Initiative petitions proposing an amendment to this Constitution shall be filed with the secretary of State at least 4 months before the election at which such proposed amendment is to be voted upon. Upon receipt of such petition by the secretary of State he shall canvass the same to ascertain if such petition has been signed by the requisite number of qualified electors, and if the same has been so signed, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electors at the next regular election at which any State officer is to be elected.”

This was changed by the amendment in 1941 as follows: pertinent to the question here, the changes made in the above part of said section by the 1941 amendment are indicated below by the italics:

“Petitions of qualified and registered electors proposing an amendment to this Constitution shall be filed with the secretary of State or such other person or persons hereafter authorised by law to receive same at least 4 months before the election at which such proposed amendment is to be voted upon. * * * Upon receipt of said petition the secretary of State

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

Related

People of Michigan v. Reginald Lamarr Davis
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2021
AFSCME Council 25 v. State Employees' Retirement System
294 Mich. App. 1 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2011)
City of South Haven v. Van Buren County Board of Commissioners
734 N.W.2d 533 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2007)
Township of Casco v. Secretary of State
701 N.W.2d 102 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2005)
Fillmore Twp v. Secretary of State
Michigan Supreme Court, 2005
Judicial Attorneys Ass'n v. State
597 N.W.2d 113 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1999)
Musselman v. Governor
533 N.W.2d 237 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1995)
House Speaker v. Governor
506 N.W.2d 190 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1993)
State Board of Education v. Houghton Lake Community Schools
425 N.W.2d 80 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1988)
Frey v. Department of Management & Budget
414 N.W.2d 873 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1987)
Shaughnesy v. Tax Tribunal
362 N.W.2d 219 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1985)
Attorney General v. Riley
332 N.W.2d 353 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1983)
Stein v. Director, Bureau of Workmen's Compensation
258 N.W.2d 179 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1977)
Van Antwerp v. City of Detroit
210 N.W.2d 3 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
Burton Abstract & Title Co. v. Martin
196 N.W.2d 23 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1972)
Hill & Valley Land Corp. v. Genesee County Board of Road Commissioners
185 N.W.2d 563 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
Mardiros v. Secretary of State
161 N.W.2d 773 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1968)
Calida Corp. v. Trenton City Engineer
152 N.W.2d 38 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 N.W.2d 257, 345 Mich. 536, 1956 Mich. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pillon-v-attorney-general-mich-1956.