|
No. 126120
| Township of Casco, Township of Columbus, |
|
William K. Fahey |
| Patricia Iseler, and James P. Holk, |
|
|
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-Appellants,
|
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(
Ingham - Houk, P.) |
|
|
| Secretary of State, Director of the Bureau |
|
Patrick J. O'Brien |
| of Elections, and City of Richmond, |
|
Eric D. Williams |
Defendants-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
Walter K. Winkle and Patricia A. Winkle, |
|
Robert J. Pineau |
Intervening Defendants/
Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellees. |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee City of Richmond's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellees Secretary of State and Director of Bureau of Elections' Brief on Appeal>>
Intervening Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Municipal League's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Townships Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
These two cases (126120 and 126369) involve townships' attempts to increase their boundaries by detaching land from a nearby city. As required by the Home Rule Cities Act (HRCA), residents of the affected areas submitted petitions to the Secretary of State calling for a detachment election. Each of the proposed detachment elections would involve multiple townships that are seeking to detach land from a single city. In both instances, the Secretary of State refused to accept the petitions, because the proposed election was not restricted to the voters of a single city (that would lose land as a result of the proposed detachment) and a single township (that would gain land as a result of the proposed detachment). Both the Secretary of State and the Court of Appeals majority concluded that the HRCA does not permit this type of election, in which citizens of one township would be allowed to vote on issues that affect another township, and in which the townships' combined voting strength could be used to overwhelm the city's voting strength. A dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals concluded that such an election was not prohibited by the HRCA. The plaintiff townships seek leave to appeal, asking the Supreme Court to compel the Secretary of State to approve their petitions and initiate the election process.
Top of Page
|
