Background
I will note that the case you cite was decided in 1972 and has been cited by other cases that relied on its precedents in all appellate decisions in Michigan, and one federal trial court decision in Michigan over the last 44 years. The losing party tried to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal later in 1972 because there was no issue of federal law involved.
Ultimate Conclusion
There is pretty much no way to change the holding of that decision other than to amend the provisions of the Michigan Constitution in question by the procedures set forth in the Michigan State Constitution.
Indeed, the basic premise of your question, "a long-standing Michigan Supreme Court ruling might possibly be incorrect" is basically definitionally wrong. When the Michigan Supreme Court interprets a provision of the Michigan State Constitution, its decision is, by definition, the correct interpretation of that language.
It isn't terribly uncommon for authoritative court decisions to conclude for a variety of reasons that the literal plain reading of constitutional text actually means something quite different than what the words actually say.
For example, the judicially interpeted meaning of the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution (which is that states are entitled to sovereign immunity unless it is waived by the state or authorized by the United States or another state) is quite different from what the wording of the amendment says ("The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."), which on its face simply slightly narrows federal court jurisdiction and says nothing on its face about sovereign immunity.
What you think those words should mean based upon a plain reading of the constitutional text is completely irrelevant.
Amending Michigan's State Constitution
Amending the state constitution is not easy in Michigan. It has been done only eight times since the current state constitution was adopted in 1963 - seven times pursuant to proposals made by the state legislature and ratified by the voters, and once in 1972 as a result of a citizens petition. It has been amended only twice since 1972.
Several methods can be employed to propose and ratify amendments.
Section 1 of Article XII states that:
Amendments to this constitution may be proposed in the senate or house
of representatives. Proposed amendments agreed to by two-thirds of the
members elected to and serving in each house on a vote with the names
and vote of those voting entered in the respective journals shall be
submitted, not less than 60 days thereafter, to the electors at the
next general election or special election as the legislature shall
direct. If a majority of electors voting on a proposed amendment
approve the same, it shall become part of the constitution and shall
abrogate or amend existing provisions of the constitution at the end
of 45 days after the date of the election at which it was approved.
This is the easiest way to amend the state constitution if there is a bipartisan consensus to amend it.
Section 2 of Article XII says:
Amendments may be proposed to this constitution by petition of the
registered electors of this state. Every petition shall include the
full text of the proposed amendment, and be signed by registered
electors of the state equal in number to at least 10 percent of the
total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding
general election at which a governor was elected. Such petitions shall
be filed with the person authorized by law to receive the same at
least 120 days before the election at which the proposed amendment is
to be voted upon. Any such petition shall be in the form, and shall be
signed and circulated in such manner, as prescribed by law. The person
authorized by law to receive such petition shall upon its receipt
determine, as provided by law, the validity and sufficiency of the
signatures on the petition, and make an official announcement thereof
at least 60 days prior to the election at which the proposed amendment
is to be voted upon.
Any amendment proposed by such petition shall be submitted, not less
than 120 days after it was filed, to the electors at the next general
election. Such proposed amendment, existing provisions of the
constitution which would be altered or abrogated thereby, and the
question as it shall appear on the ballot shall be published in full
as provided by law. Copies of such publication shall be posted in each
polling place and furnished to news media as provided by law.
The ballot to be used in such election shall contain a statement of
the purpose of the proposed amendment, expressed in not more than 100
words, exclusive of caption. Such statement of purpose and caption
shall be prepared by the person authorized by law, and shall consist
of a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the amendment in
such language as shall create no prejudice for or against the proposed
amendment.
If the proposed amendment is approved by a majority of the electors
voting on the question, it shall become part of the constitution, and
shall abrogate or amend existing provisions of the constitution at the
end of 45 days after the date of the election at which it was
approved. If two or more amendments approved by the electors at the
same election conflict, that amendment receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.
There were 3,156,531 votes cast for all candidates in the most recent election for Governor in Michigan in 2014. This means that 315,653 valid signatures would have to be on a petition requesting a constitutional amendment and experience in states where initiatives are common suggest that significantly more signatures than that would have to be collected in order to get that many valid signatures.
Section 3 of Article XII says:
At the general election to be held in the year 1978, and in each 16th
year thereafter and at such times as may be provided by law, the
question of a general revision of the constitution shall be submitted
to the electors of the state. If a majority of the electors voting on
the question decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, at an
election to be held not later than six months after the proposal was
certified as approved, the electors of each representative district as
then organized shall elect one delegate and the electors of each
senatorial district as then organized shall elect one delegate at a
partisan election. The delegates so elected shall convene at the seat
of government on the first Tuesday in October next succeeding such
election or at an earlier date if provided by law.
The convention shall choose its own officers, determine the rules of
its proceedings and judge the qualifications, elections and returns of
its members. To fill a vacancy in the office of any delegate, the
governor shall appoint a qualified resident of the same district who
shall be a member of the same party as the delegate vacating the
office. The convention shall have power to appoint such officers,
employees and assistants as it deems necessary and to fix their
compensation; to provide for the printing and distribution of its
documents, journals and proceedings; to explain and disseminate
information about the proposed constitution and to complete the
business of the convention in an orderly manner. Each delegate shall
receive for his services compensation provided by law.
No proposed constitution or amendment adopted by such convention shall
be submitted to the electors for approval as hereinafter provided
unless by the assent of a majority of all the delegates elected to and
serving in the convention, with the names and vote of those voting
entered in the journal. Any proposed constitution or amendments
adopted by such convention shall be submitted to the qualified
electors in the manner and at the time provided by such convention not
less than 90 days after final adjournment of the convention. Upon the
approval of such constitution or amendments by a majority of the
qualified electors voting thereon the constitution or amendments shall
take effect as provided by the convention
The next referendum pursuant to Section 3, Article XII is in the year 2026, and any proposed amendments from a constitutional convention called under that provision would not take effect until approved by voters which could happen no sooner than the year 2028. Voters declined to call for a constitutional convention in the years 1978, 1994 and 2010.
No Law Pased Only By The Legislature Can Overrule This Decision
The state legislature can't pass an ordinary law that overrules a Michigan Supreme Court interpretation of the state constitution either. And, even Congress can't pass a law that reinterprets language in a particular state's constitution that has been determined to be the correct one by the state supreme court.
No Other Court Can Overrule This Michigan Supreme Court Decision
The federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overrule the Michigan Supreme Court on a question of Michigan state law. The lower courts of Michigan cannot overrule the Michigan Supreme Court on any question.
The Michigan Supreme Court Is Extremely Unlikely To Modify This Decision
The Michigan Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to overrule itself regarding a decision that has stood and been relied upon for 44 years since questions of statutory interpretation are usually given unusually strong respect as precedents to promote certainty, although it could change its mind if it wanted to.
Usually, though, a state supreme court only overrules one of its own past precedents if it becomes inconsistent with another line of cases and it eventually becomes clear that there are two or more inconsistent lines of precedents can't be reconciled with each other in some fact pattern that pits one line of cases squarely against another.
For example, in Colorado, earlier this year a older case holding that a defense called "laches" could not be used in child support cases collided directly with a newer Colorado Supreme Court case involving promissory notes that held that the defense called "laches" is available in every type of case in Colorado. When confronted with the conflicting precedents in a new case this year the Colorado Supreme Court resolved the conflict in favor of the newer holding, overruling the older one which states that "laches" did not apply to child support cases.
But, this is extremely unlikely to happen when the question involves the meaning of the precise wording of a highly technical property tax provision of the state constitution.
