Sign In

160658; 160660 - Taxpayers for MI Constitutional Gov't v State of MI

160658

Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Government, Steve Duchane, Randall Blum, and Sara Kandel,

 

John Philo

 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 

v

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

 

 

 

 

State of Michigan, Department of Technology, Management and Budget and Office of Auditor General,

 

Matthew Hodges

 

Defendants-Appellees.

 

 

 

 

_____________________________

 

John Philo

160660

 

 

Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Government, Steve Duchane, Randall Blum, and Sara Kandel,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 

v

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

 

 

State of Michigan, Department of Technology, Management and Budget and Office of Auditor General,

 

Matthew Hodges

 

Defendants-Appellants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

The plaintiffs brought an original action in the Court of Appeals to enforce §§ 25 and 30 of the Headlee Amendment, which prohibit the state from shifting the tax burden to local governments and from reducing the total of state spending paid to all units of local government, taken as a group, below that proportion in effect in fiscal year 1978-1979.  See Const 1963, art 9, §§ 25 and 30.  In a 2-1 published opinion (on reconsideration), the Court of Appeals (1) granted the State of Michigan summary disposition on two of the plaintiffs’ counts; (2) granted the plaintiffs summary disposition on a third count; and (3) granted mandamus relief.  The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address:  (1) whether the defendants violated Const 1963, art 9, §§ 25 and 30, by classifying monies paid to school districts pursuant to Proposal A, Const 1963, art 9, § 11, as state spending in the form of aid paid to units of local government; (2) whether the defendants violated Const 1963, art 9, §§ 25 and 30, by classifying monies paid to public school academies (a.k.a. charter schools) as state spending in the form of aid paid to units of local government; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that state funds directed to local governments to satisfy state obligations under Const 1963, art 9, § 29 may not be counted toward the proportion of state funds required by Const 1963, art 9, § 30; and (4) whether the Court of Appeals erred to the extent that it held that the Auditor General or the Office of the Auditor General is subject to mandamus relief.​