Skip to main content
added 149 characters in body
Source Link
Ðаn
  • 121
  • 4

It occurred to me that a long-standing Michigan Supreme Court ruling might possibly be incorrect; the case involves interpreting the Michigan Constitution [although, as pointed out below, this technically isn't possible as the MSC, by definition, has the final say-so in interpreting the constitution]. What is the process for having the issue re-heard?

Among other things, the court in Butcher found that the phrase "The foregoing limitations shall not apply ..." at the beginning of the second paragraph obviates the "... aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills ..." in the first paragraph for cites, et. al.

It occurred to me that a long-standing Michigan Supreme Court ruling might possibly be incorrect; the case involves interpreting the Michigan Constitution. What is the process for having the issue re-heard?

Among other things, the court in Butcher found that the phrase "The foregoing limitations shall not apply ..." at the beginning of the second paragraph obviates the "... aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills ..." in the first paragraph.

It occurred to me that a long-standing Michigan Supreme Court ruling might possibly be incorrect; the case involves interpreting the Michigan Constitution [although, as pointed out below, this technically isn't possible as the MSC, by definition, has the final say-so in interpreting the constitution]. What is the process for having the issue re-heard?

Among other things, the court in Butcher found that the phrase "The foregoing limitations shall not apply ..." at the beginning of the second paragraph obviates the "... aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills ..." in the first paragraph for cites, et. al.

Source Link
Ðаn
  • 121
  • 4

what is the process for overturning a Michigan Supreme Court ruling?

It occurred to me that a long-standing Michigan Supreme Court ruling might possibly be incorrect; the case involves interpreting the Michigan Constitution. What is the process for having the issue re-heard?


Details: the case is Butcher v. Township of Grosse Ile, which deals with Article IX, Section 9 of the Michigan constitution.

Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, the total amount of general ad valorem taxes imposed upon real and tangible personal property for all purposes in any one year shall not exceed 15 mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation of property as finally equalized. Under procedures provided by law, which shall guarantee the right of initiative, separate tax limitations for any county and for the townships and for school districts therein, the aggregate of which shall not exceed 18 mills on each dollar of such valuation, may be adopted and thereafter altered by the vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting thereon, in lieu of the limitation hereinbefore established. These limitations may be increased to an aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills on each dollar of valuation, for a period of not to exceed 20 years at any one time, if approved by a majority of the electors, qualified under Section 6 of Article II of this constitution, voting on the question.

The foregoing limitations shall not apply to taxes imposed for the payment of principal and interest on bonds approved by the electors or other evidences of indebtedness approved by the electors or for the payment of assessments or contract obligations in anticipation of which bonds are issued approved by the electors, which taxes may be imposed without limitation as to rate or amount; or, subject to the provisions of Section 25 through 34 of this article, to taxes imposed for any other purpose by any city, village, charter county, charter township, charter authority or other authority, the tax limitations of which are provided by charter or by general law.

In any school district which extends into two or more counties, property taxes at the highest rate available in the county which contains the greatest part of the area of the district may be imposed and collected for school purposes throughout the district.

Among other things, the court in Butcher found that the phrase "The foregoing limitations shall not apply ..." at the beginning of the second paragraph obviates the "... aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills ..." in the first paragraph.

My very careful reading of the text makes me question whether this interpretation is correct.

The first paragraph says "... the total amount of general ad valorem taxes imposed upon real and tangible personal property for all purposes in any one year shall not exceed 15 mills ... . Under procedures provided by law, ... , separate tax limitations for any county and for the townships and for school districts therein, the aggregate of which shall not exceed 18 mills ... , in lieu of the limitation hereinbefore established." [emphasis added] That is, the 18-mill "limitation" replaces ("in lieu of") the 15-mill limitation.

The text then says, "... These limitations ..." What "limitations"? The 15- and 18-mill limitations just described. The text then continues "... may be increased to an aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills ..." Notice the wording here is "an aggregate of not to exceed", with no mention of the word "limitation." In other words, the "15- and 18-mill "limitations" may be increased up to 50 mills;" but "50 mills" itself isn't a "limitation," the text quite plainly calls it "an aggregate," as opposed to a "limitation."

Now, onto the second paragraph with begins "The foregoing limitations ..." What exactly are the "foregoing limitations"? That would again be the 15- and 18-mill "limitations" described in the first paragraph; but not "... aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills ..." as that is not a "limitation."

The assumption has always been that "50 mills" is also a "limitation," and thus the second paragraph excludes any "... city, village, charter county, charter township, charter authority or other authority, ..." from the 50-mill aggregate.