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

<hr>

<p>Details: the case is <a href="http://tinyurl.com/z3rwpsm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Butcher v. Township of Grosse Ile</a>, which deals with <a href="http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-IX-6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article IX, Section 9</a> of the Michigan constitution.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Among other things, the court in <strong>Butcher</strong> 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.</p>

<p>My <em>very careful</em> reading of the text makes me question whether this interpretation is correct.</p>

<p>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 <strong>limitations</strong> 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 <strong>limitation</strong> hereinbefore established." [<strong>emphasis</strong> added] That is, the 18-mill "limitation" replaces ("in lieu of") the 15-mill limitation.</p>

<p>The text then says, "... These <strong>limitations</strong> ..." 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."</p>

<p>Now, onto the second paragraph with begins "The foregoing <strong>limitations</strong> ..." 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><strong>Background</strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><strong>Ultimate Conclusion</strong></p>

<p>There is pretty much no way to change the holding of that decision other than to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Michigan#Amendments" rel="nofollow noreferrer">amend the provisions of the Michigan Constitution</a> in question by the procedures set forth in the Michigan State Constitution. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>What you think those words should mean based upon a plain reading of the constitutional text is completely irrelevant.</p>

<p><strong>Amending Michigan's State Constitution</strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Several methods can be employed to propose and ratify amendments.</p>

<p>Section 1 of Article XII states that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A<strong>mendments 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</strong> 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. <strong>If a majority of electors voting on a proposed amendment
  approve the same, it shall become part of the constitution</strong> 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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is the easiest way to amend the state constitution if there is a bipartisan consensus to amend it.</p>

<p>Section 2 of Article XII says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Amendments may be proposed to this constitution by petition of the
  registered electors of this state. <strong>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.</strong> 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.</p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There were 3,156,531 votes cast for all candidates in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Snyder" rel="nofollow noreferrer">most recent election for Governor in Michigan in 2014</a>. 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.</p>

<p>Section 3 of Article XII says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>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.</strong></p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>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</p>
</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p><strong>No Law Pased Only By The Legislature Can Overrule This Decision</strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><strong>No Other Court Can Overrule This Michigan Supreme Court Decision</strong></p>

<p>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. </p>

<p><strong>The Michigan Supreme Court Is Extremely Unlikely To Modify This Decision</strong></p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>
