LANSING – The Reform Michigan Government Now! proposal does not meet the standards set by the Constitution for amendments, the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Wednesday evening, and therefore cannot be placed on the November ballot.

Supporters of the wide-ranging proposal called the decision a “travesty of justice” and promised an appeal.

The court opinion was issued some 16 hours before the Board of State Canvassers was scheduled to meet on approving ballot language for the RMGN proposal. That meeting will go on because there are other matters on the agenda, but whether it will continue to discuss the RMGN is unknown.

Judges Bill Schuette, William Whitbeck and Patrick Meter ruled per curiam that the proposal violated the specific conditions laid out in the Constitution for amendments. They also issued an order granting the plaintiffs in the case, Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution, a writ of mandamus directing the Department of State to stop processing the amendment and “not to allow the proposal to be placed on the ballot.”

The court also ruled one day after hearing arguments from supporters that nothing in the Constitution puts limits on the kinds of amendments citizens can propose by initiative. The judges had hinted in Tuesday’s arguments that they might rule before the canvassers took action.

But the judges said there are strictures and limits on how amendments should go before the people. The RMGN is not just an amendment, they said, but a revision of the Constitution. Revisions of the Constitution can only be written and submitted by the constitutional convention.

“Constitutional modification requires strict adherence to the methods and approaches included in the Constitution itself. Shortcuts and end runs to revise the constitution, which ignore the pathways specifically set forth by the framers cannot be tolerated,” the opinion said.

Since the Court of Appeals as well as the Supreme Court were targets of the proposal (it would require cutting the membership of each court) and since all judges in the state would have been affected by a required pay cut in the proposal, there had been questions raised by supporters as to whether any court could fairly deal with the issue.

In the opinion the judges said directly, “We offer no opinion on the merits of any or all of the substantive matters contained within the RMGN initiative petition. Also, let us be clear at the outset what our opinion today does not do. We do not act to prevent the citizens from voting on a proposal simply because that proposal is allegedly too complex or confusing. … The broad range of public policy issues, and those items which involved politics and elections, are not the province of the judicial branch of government.”

The court also rejected arguments that its action would amount to a judicial veto of the proposal. Such a claim ignores the legal and constitutional provisions, the court said, and is “an appeal to the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Our decision interprets and applies provisions of the Constitution of the state of Michigan, nothing less and nothing more.”

The constitution establishes clear provisions for amendments and those amendments cannot “effectuate” a revision of the Constitution, the court said.

The opinion first establishes that the secretary of state and the canvassers can in fact take action on their own to block a petition like the RMGN and have a “clear legal duty” to do so. State election officials have the duty to conduct a threshold determination of whether such a proposal meets constitutional provisions.

But the court also held that until this decision the secretary or the canvassers did not themselves have to determine what is the threshold determination of appropriateness.

“Our order would enforce a duty on the part of the board and the secretary to reject the RMGN initiative petition in light our ‘threshold determination’ that it does not meet the constitutional prerequisites for acceptance.” Such a ruling means any action taken by the secretary or canvassers on the RMGN or similar proposals would be ministerial not judicial, the court said.

And the court said to allow a general revision by initiative petition would defy the intent of the constitutional framers that general revisions be done at constitutional conventions.

The court rejected the argument of RMGN that effectively the amendment procedure allows for such general revisions. While the words amendment and revision have some common characteristics, the court said, revision implies restructuring and redrafting of the proposal. Amendment, on the other hand, implies maintaining the basic structure with corrections of detail.

And examining the RMGN shows that it does not come close to meeting the provisions of what an amendment is, the court said. Because it amends multiple articles and multiples sections of the Constitution, with “very significant” changes to governance, it is a general revision.

In fact, many of the provisions are immediate and abrupt to the current nature of state government, the court said. “We conclude, in light of these factors, that the modification of, and interference with the operation of government is so far-reaching and so substantial that, considering both the quantitative and qualitative nature of the proposed changes, the RMGN initiative petition effects a ‘general revision’ of, and not simply an ‘amendment’ of the Constitution,” the court said.

Dianne Byrum, spokesperson for RMGN, called the action unprecedented. Even though the proposal had sufficient signatures and a proposed 100-word ballot description, the court has shown “it will do anything to protect the status quo and their perks. The losers are the taxpayers of Michigan,” she said.

Tom Shields, president of Marketing Group and spokesperson for opponents, said RMGN backers have already wasted enough time and money and should not appeal. “We’re quite pleased that the court rejected this proposal as nothing more than a cynical attempt to rewrite the constitution without following the process,” he said. “The instruction to the Board of Canvassers is quite clear that they cannot certify this to the ballot.”

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com

a>>