[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5907 May 18, 1981 COUNTIES: Appointment of members of board of auditors affiliated with a political party WORDS AND PHRASES: 'Affiliated' 1913 PA 275, Sec. 5, which provides that no more than two members of any county board of auditors shall be affiliated with the same political party, requires that no more than two members of the appointed county board of auditors may either hold membership in a political party, or if they are nonmembers of the political party, that they adhere to or further the purposes of the political party with which they are said to be affiliated. Honorable Nick Ciaramitaro State Representative The Capitol Lansing, Michigan You have requested my opinion concerning the meaning of the term 'affiliated' as employed in 1913 PA 275, Sec. 5, which specifies that not more than two members of any appointed county board of auditors shall be affiliated with the same political party. 1913 PA 275, Sec. 5, as amended by 1961 PA 63; MCLA 47.5; MSA 5.555, in pertinent part, articulates the qualifications for a county board of auditors: 'The board of supervisors of any county instead of electing all the members of the board of auditors may elect by ballot a board of county auditors of not to exceed 3 members, 1 of whom the board of supervisors shall designate as chairman of the board of county auditors. . . . No person holding any office either elective or appointive under any county adopting this act, or any of the townships of the county, or of the state, and no person not an elector of the county shall be eligible to hold the office of county auditor. No more than 2 members of any board of auditors shall be affiliated with the same political party.' (Emphasis supplied.) OAG, 1955-1956, No 2594, p 562, 565-566 (September 19, 1956), considered the application of the Michigan Election Law, 1954 PA 116, Secs. 674 and 677; MCLA 168.674, 168.677; MSA 6.1674, 6.1677 requiring that not more than 50 percent as nearly as possible of the total number of appointed precinct election inspectors in each election precinct be of the same political party. The opinion discussed the definition of the term 'political party' and concluded, in part: 'The legislature has not defined the words 'political party' in this section of the election code nor in other sections of the election code. The code contains numerous references to political parties and in Section 685 of the election code, provides for new political parties to be placed upon the ballot in this state and for the continuance upon the ballot of political parties. 'There appears to be no decision of our court defining the words 'political party.' 'In the case of Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights, (Ohio) 119 NE (2) 644, the court was asked to construe the meaning of the words 'political party' contained in a statute prohibiting municipal employees from certain activities relative to political parties. The court ruled that the ordinary and usual meaning of a political party is well known, being an organization seeking or exercising power in government, and the word political was held to be used as meaning partisan. Davidson v. Hanson (Minn.) 92 NW 93; Ritter v. Douglas, (Nev.) 109 P. 444; Chambers v. Greenman Association, (N.Y.) 58 NYS (2) 637. 'There is no 'independent party' or 'non-partisan party' on the ballot in Michigan. There is no record of any organization established within this state bearing the name 'Independent Party' or 'Non-Partisan Party.' While it is true that some electors consider themselves 'independents' or 'non-partisan', by the use of these designations they indicate that by their sentiments they are not members of any organized political party appearing upon the ballot in this state. Nevertheless they are compelled to vote for political parties or their standard bearers when they choose to exercise their privilege of franchise in most elections and when they chose to vote in the state primary held on August 7, 1956, they were compelled by law to prefer a political party in that they could vote only for the candidates of one political party appearing upon the ballot. [T]o receive as in compliance with the statute answers of 'independent,' 'non-partisan' and 'none' to the inquiry of political party preference would open the door for the evasion of the eminent spirit of Section 674 of the election code, permitting a board of election inspectors of a precinct to be by way of majority or entirely of the same political party in that the partisan would seek to conceal his true intention under the answers you suggest, plainly contrary to the intention of the legislature. 'The people have wisely ordered vigilance in the conduct of our elections, and the legislature in pursuance of this mandate, have provided for salutary safeguards. Every citizen benefits from the diverse interests represented on the boards of election inspectors, by this means insuring impartiality and freedom from political bias in the conduct of our elections. Thompson v. City of Boston, 148 Mass. 387.' (Emphasis supplied.) The powers and duties of a county board of auditors are found in 1913 PA 275, supra, Sec. 9, and include, inter alia, the responsibility to audit claims and warrants, provide supplies, audit books of county officers, approve official boards and monitor and control county buildings. The Legislature has seen fit to insure diversity by limiting board composition to no more than two members affiliated with the same political party. Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that the Legislature intended by the requirement found in 1913 PA 275, Sec. 5, supra, that, considering the partisan nature of the appointed board of county auditors, the formula of not permitting more than two members to be affiliated with the same political party on the board is conducive to a more balanced board. Furthermore, since the Legislature has not precluded persons unaffiliated with any political party from serving as a member of a county board of auditors, the board need not be composed entirely of persons affiliated with political parties. Clearly, it is contemplated that a member of a political party is affiliated with that political party for purposes of 1913 PA 275, Sec. 5, supra. In Sells v United States, 262 F2d 815, 822 (CA 10, 1958), cert den, 360 US 913; 79 S Ct 1289; 3 L Ed 2d 818 (1959), it was held that 'affiliation' imports less than membership but more than sympathy and requires an adherence to or a furtherance of purposes or objectives of an organization as distinguished from mere cooperation with it in its activities. Also indicative of 'affiliation' is a desire and intent to adhere and further rather than merely to sympathize with an organization. Similarly, in Fisher v United States, 231 F2d 99, 107-108 (CA 9, 1956), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that 'affiliation' involves more than sympathy but less than membership and connotes a continuing reciprocal relationship of duty and responsibilities. See also Bridges v Wixon, 326 US 135; 65 S Ct 1443; 89 L Ed 2103 (1945). It is my opinion, therefore, that the term 'affiliated with' means either membership in a political party, or if the members of the county board of auditors are nonmembers of the political party, they adhere to or further the purposes of the political party to which they are said to be affiliated. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]