STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5634

January 29, 1980

CITIES, HOME RULE:

Charter revision

The charter commission of a home rule city may fix the date for the election to approve the revised city charter provided that the date of the election is in compliance with state law and is workable.

Honorable William R. Keith

State Representative

Thirty-Third District

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48933

You have requested my opinion upon the question:

Charter revisions are provided for in 1909 PA 279, Sec. 18 et seq. ⁽¹⁾ Section 20 ⁽²⁾ provides in pertinent part:

In Harvey v City Commission of the City of Port Huron, ⁽³⁾ the city commission refused to hold a charter election or pay for the publication of the charter because, in part, the charter commission had established an unworkable date for submission of the charter, which left insufficient time for the publication of the proposed charter as required by law. The city commission also contended that the charter commission could not establish a new date because the charter commission's authority had expired. The Supreme Court stated:

The Court responded to the request that it fix the date of the election as follows:

In Attorney General ex rel Baum v City of Saginaw, ⁽⁴⁾ a writ of mandamus was issued to compel the council to hold a charter election on a date fixed by the charter commission. The Supreme Court, in Eikhoff v Charter Commission of the City of Detroit, ⁽⁵⁾ interpreting the duties of the charter commission under 1909 PA 279, Sec. 20, then in effect, stated:

See also McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (3rd ed), Sec. 3.43, pp 311, 312.

The authority of a charter commission to designate an election date for submission of a charter is not confined to the submission of charters incorporating new home rule cities, but applies as well to charter commissions of existing home rule cities revising a charter. Harvey City Commission of the City Commission of Port Huron, supra.

Thus, the charter commission of a home rule city has the authority to designate the date upon which an election will be held for the submission of a revised city charter, and city officials may not arbitrarily refuse to schedule an election on such date, if the date is properly in compliance with state law and is workable.

If, however, the date selected by the charter commission is not in accord with state law or is unworkable then city officials could properly decline to schedule an election on such a date. For example, the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, Sec. 639, ⁽⁶⁾ provides that special election dates shall be reviewed by the county election scheduling committee for a determination whether the scheduled special election conflicts with any other scheduled election in the county, with consideration for timely notice and opportunity for registration. This section requires the disapproval of a special election scheduled to be held less than 45 days after the approval date. Therefore, if a charter commission designated a date for special election which would not result in compliance with the requirements of section 639, the appropriate city officials may decline to schedule a special election on such a date. In such event, the authority and responsibility for designating the alternate date is with the charter commission, subject to the requirements of state law.

It is, therefore, my opinion that the charter commission of a home rule city has the authority to designate the date upon which an election will be held for the submission of a revised city charter, and city officials may not arbitrarily refuse to schedule an election on such date, if the date is properly in compliance with state law and is workable.

Frank J. Kelley