Whether Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s rejection of proposed Detroit charter revisions prevents a public vote took center stage before the
Lawyers for the citizens who filed lawsuits seeking to block the August charter vote contend the governor’s signature is needed to proceed under the state’s home rule city statute. The commission counters that no such explicit rule exists and that constitutional language providing for the electorate to frame, amend, and adopt a charter provides the final word.
Whether a court decision keeping the revisions from the ballot would deny Detroit voters their constitutional right to decide charter issues appeared to weigh heavily on the minds of several justices based on their questions.
“We are not looking at the statute in isolation,” Justice Megan K. Cavanagh told lawyers for the plaintiffs, referring to home rule statutes.
“We are looking at it against the backdrop of the constitutional provisions that say the ability to draft and amend and revise the charter resides with the electors…you are asking us to say that the governor does have a veto and the constitution doesn’t keep that power with the electors,” she said.
“Why shouldn’t the default be to allow the people to have the opportunity and right to vote?” Justice Richard H. Bernstein asked the plaintiffs seeking to block the vote.
Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan opposed the proposed charter revisions set to appear on the Aug. 3 ballot in Proposition P. His administration has put a $2 billion, four-year price tag on the changes, saying they could ultimately drive Detroit back into bankruptcy. The Detroit Charter Review Commission calls those estimates dramatically inflated, based on faulty assumptions, and says most changes are not mandated.
Whitmer reviewed the changes, a longstanding practice now being questioned by the litigation, and rejected them in an
Two lawsuits were filed by citizens against Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey and the Detroit Election Commission to block the printing to ballots. The charter commission joined as an intervening defendant.
Whitmer initially said the measure could proceed based on the AG’s opinion without her approval. The commission made some modifications to the revisions and submitted them again to Whitmer who declined to review them, citing a missed deadline.
A Wayne County Circuit Court agreed that the governor’s approval is needed and decertified the measure May 27. The appellate court upheld that conclusion. The
Aug. 3 is Detroit's citywide primary election. Duggan will be seeking a third term.
Voters established the review commission in 2018, Andrew Phelps, who represents the charter commission, told justices, and under the 1963 state constitution when “there is an issue of interpretation of the constitution or a law that relates to a city it is to be liberally construed in favor of the city,” he said. “We construe it in favor of the city. We construe it in favor of the charter review commission and the people of the city. We don’t construe it in favor of the governor and give her right that is not set forth expressly in the statute.”
Phelps also said that the statutes don’t require the governor’s approval as a condition to put the question to voters, just notification at some point before the charter commission adjourns on Aug. 6.
Justice David F. Viviano questioned whether that was really the intent of the legislature in crafting the home rule statutes as the governor’s review would then be rendered “meaningless” and noted that all municipalities have long observed the governor’s pre-vote review as a ballot condition.
Viviano also noted that the charter commission’s “theory is inconsistent with the way” it has acted by seeking the governor’s approval ahead of the vote and then submitting changes in the wake of her initial rejection.
The plaintiffs argued that legislative removal of override powers in the home rule statute for charter commissions supports their argument that legislative intent was to give the governor veto powers and that the commission followed the longstanding tradition by submitting the measure ahead of the vote.
“This statute is designed to protect voters from precisely the type of proposal that is full of illegal and misleading provisions that the governor and AG rejected the current proposal for,” Jason Hanselman, attorney for one set of plaintiffs, told the justices. “The charter commission’s actions that we just heard showed that they agreed that there are the only two paths up until changing their position for this litigation.”
Several justices appeared skeptical. “It protects the people by not letting them determine or decide their own decision?” Bernstein asked.
When plaintiff attorney Andrew Pauwels was outlining history of the home rule statute, Justice Elizabeth M. Welch interrupted: “Do we really think that the parties intended that the governor could had an unfettered veto over cities for any reason whatsoever?”
Pauwels’ said voters can seek to recall a governor or jettison them out of office in the next election and argued that’s not the question at hand, only whether the governor has veto powers based on statutes.
The charter establishing ground rules for government operations was last revised in 2012. The
