Home/Michigan/Statutes/Ch. 3: FEDERAL AND INTERSTATE RELATIONS/Act 282 of 1964: CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT (3.51-3.55)/§ 3.51
Michigan Statutes

§ 3.51 — Apportionment of congressional districts.

Michigan·Ch. 3 FEDERAL AND INTERSTATE RELATIONS·Act 282 of 1964 CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT (3.51-3.55)

CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT (EXCERPT) Act 282 of 1964 3.51 Apportionment of congressional districts. Sec.

1.The state is divided into 15 congressional districts pursuant to the ratio of representation fixed under an act of congress for the apportionment of the representatives among the several states. Each district is entitled to 1 representative. The districts are constituted and numbered as follows: DISTRICT 01 Alcona County Alger County Alpena County Antrim County Arenac County Baraga County Bay County (part) Auburn city Beaver twp Fraser twp Garfield twp Gibson twp Kawkawlin twp Midland city (part) TRACT 285600 including block(s) 2022, 2027, 2028, 4039, 4040, 4041, 4042, 4043, 4044. Monitor twp (part) TRACT 285500 including block(s) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

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

Michigan § 3.51 (Apportionment of congressional districts.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Legislative History

1964, Act 282, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 115 , Eff. Mar. 22, 2002 Constitutionality: In an original action, plaintiffs challenged the plan for redistricting Michigan's fifteen seats in the U.S. House of Representatives adopted by 2001 PA 115. Plaintiffs claimed that the statute was not validly enacted because the bill passed by the Legislature was changed by the Secretary of the Senate before presentation to the Governor for his approval. Second, they contended that the redistricting plan failed to comply with Michigan statutory requirements for congressional redistricting established by 1999 PA 221.The Michigan Supreme Court concluded: (1) 2001 PA 115 was validly enacted because the changes made before submission to the Governor were technical corrections that did not violate the provisions of the Michigan Constitution regarding enactment of legislation; (2) the redistricting guidelines of MCL 3.63 (c), as enacted by 1999 PA 211, were not binding on the Legislature's redistricting of Michigan's congressional seats in 2001; and (3) the reference to the 1999 guidelines in the 2001 redistricting act did not indicate legislative intent to make the redistricting plan reviewable using those guidelines. The Court denied plaintiff's application for review of the congressional redistricting plan. LeRoux v Secretary of State, 465 Mich 594 (2002).

Nearby Sections

15
§ 3.1001
Interstate emergency management assistance compact; personnel.
§ 3.1002
Review by legislature.
§ 3.1003
Legislative intent.
§ 3.1004
Conditional effective date.
§ 3.1011
Short title.
§ 3.1012
Interstate compact for supervision of adult offenders; form.
§ 3.1021
Short title.
§ 3.1022
Midwest interstate passenger rail compact.
§ 3.1031
Interstate insurance product regulation compact.
§ 3.1041
Interstate compact on educational opportunity for military children; jurisdictions; form.
§ 3.1042
Appointment of representative by governor; qualifications; "armed forces of the United States" defined.
§ 3.1051
Compact.
§ 3.1052
Short title.
§ 3.1053
National crime prevention and privacy compact; form.
§ 3.1061
Short title.
View on official source ↗