A few weekend links

Don't kid yourself

There is no respect for the Constitution from the GOP Supreme Court. They will side with L Brooks and simply deny that it is unconstitutional. Worse, we will have to listen to the Repubes brag about how they shoved it up our ass and we couldn't do a damned thing about it. Frank Houston made a compelling, accurate arguement for the Dems. I give us a 10% chance of justice and reason winning over partisianship. I will be glad to eat crow. But the fact is, the GOP is better at playing dirty while the Dems cry about " they're being mean to me!"

---

by: Mitch @ Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 13:18:17 PM UTC

Assuming that does happen,

our best bet is going to be getting Johnson, Kelley, and McCormack on the Court. Then they will likely reverse the previous decision in time for 2014. Supreme Courts reverse themselves all the time - even here in Michigan.

One wonders if Markman and Zahra are worried about this election, though. The last thing they want to be accused of is violating the Constitution. Then again, they've already done a lot they probably wouldn't want to be associated with.

This campaign will be our best opportunity in years to highlight just how corrupt the Supreme Court is. If people get a bad impression of the Supreme Court, will they vote for the incumbents?

Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott

---

by: ScottyUrb @ Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 17:29:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know

Some cases they decide conceivably have a way in which to interpret them and still make it look legal.  This one is so clear cut that even I'd be surprised if they if they let this by.

I honestly want to see how they are going to pretend that a local act doesn't need a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass.  Anyone have any inkling as to how this is being argued from the Republians side?  The only argument I've seen (the redistricting will save the county money) is completely irrelevant to whether it is legal or not.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 00:56:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think they tried to describe Oakland in general terms.

You just need to pick a description of a set, which turns out to have only one member.  But it's best if the description at least pretends to have something in common with the "problem" you're supposedly addressing.

It's easy to specify Wayne County, for example, by pretending that size of the population requires a different system of government or whatever.  Of course, as we've seen with Detroit, using a fixed population minimum to trigger a provision may not work in the long run.

The wrong way to create such a one member set is to invoke something that only happens to be true at this moment:  "This provision shall apply to any county with an elected County Executive who weighs over 250 pounds."

Far better:  "... to any county which contains in excess of fifty townships and cities".  (Oakland has 52, in second place Wayne has 44.)  It wouldn't be hard for a judge of ordinary dishonesty to convince themself that having so many independent units of government demands a method of drawing commissioner districts which is more sensitive to local communities or something.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 05:49:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's still

That's still irrelevant (the last arguement in the last paragraph) to the suit.  This isn't a question of "what kind of government should Oakland County have/what kind of government if most efficient for Oakland County?"  That's an entirely seperate question to be decided by the people of Oakland County if they are ever so inclined to take it up.  

This case seems painfully clear, and that's whether or not the law was written to apply to a single county?  If that is the case, it needs a two-thirds majority to pass, which would make the bill unconstitutional.  Again, I haven't seen a single argument by their side that addresses the actual lawsuit.  

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 09:01:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm trying to talk about the legal situation.

The Supremes (by which I mean the four Republicans) will do what they can to uphold Brooks and his power grab.  But the Court needs a peg on which to hang its hat.  That's not a very high standard - lots of things will suffice to hold a hat.

But the general standard is that a bill is "local" if it could only apply to specific units of government, unless that special application makes some sort of plausible public policy sense.  My proposed distinction (which the Republicans in the legislature overlooked, but is a pretty neat way to refer to Oakland County) would pass muster almost automatically.

The one actually used smells bad.

Even worse are the use of typologies based on how many letters there are in the name of the county, or what words it rhymes with.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 14:23:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The use of general terms

The Michigan statutes are filled with provisions which apply on to the City of Detroit.  One example is that Detroit may levy a higher income tax than may other cities.  When I worked for the legislature, in the 1970s, these provisions were written to apply only to 'cities with populations of over 1,000,000.'  The phrase 'city of Detroit' occurs nowhere in any of these Detroit-only statutes. Obviously the population figures have been updated since.

The Oakland redistricting statute similarly does not contain the phrase 'Oakland County.'  It contains some convoluted description that describes only Oakland County.  The point is that such a description can pass and has passed muster legally under the right circumstances.

---

by: alanfox @ Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 12:21:16 PM UTC

oops...

Multitasking; ... Michigan statutes are filled with provisions only to the City of Detroit....

---

by: alanfox @ Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 12:51:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are these?

I'm well aware of these acts that apply specifically to Detroit because of how they are written.  The question isn't whether laws written for specific jurisidictions are legal.  Of course you can write local acts.  My question (and the question of this case) is if these acts have been passed by the two-thirds majority in both houses as required by the constitution for local acts.

I honestly am not sure what some of you aren't getting about the issue, here.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:17:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Local" acts versus "Public" acts

The reason the statutes applying to Detroit only refer to it indirectly (as "any City of over 500,000 population" for example) is precisely to evade the restrictions in Michigan's Constitution on the adoption of local acts.

We NEVER see local acts any more - it's probably been over 50 years since we've seen one.

Back before "home rule", Michigan cities had so few powers that whenever they needed something done, they asked the legislature, which would then adopt the necessary local act, which might be as specific as permitting the City of Grayling to establish a pension fund for its employees.

The only remaining evidence of this lost world is the effort spent evading the requirement that such local acts (which no longer exist) be adopted by a 2/3 vote.  It's kind of like repaving a sidewalk to continue swerving around a tree that was removed 20 years ago.  Along comes a crew to repave the walkway, and they assume the swooping path is some sacred tradition, to be followed without stopping to wonder.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 14:46:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]