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. 6710 February 13, 1992 MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACT: Preparation, circulation and filing of a petition to detach an area from a city MUNICIPALITIES: Use of public funds to prepare, circulate and file a petition to detach an area from a city The Michigan Campaign Finance Act applies to activities of a group with regard to the preparation, circulation and filing of a petition for detachment of an area from a city pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the home rule cities act. A municipality may expend public funds to finance the preparation, circulation and filing of a petition seeking an election for detachment of an area from a city pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the home rules cities act. Honorable Richard H. Austin Secretary of State Treasury Building Lansing, MI You have asked my opinion on two separate questions regarding the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, 1976 PA 388, as amended, MCL 169.201 et seq; MSA 4.1703(1) et seq. Your first question is whether the Michigan Campaign Finance Act applies to activities of a group with regard to the preparation, circulation and filing of a petition seeking an election for detachment of an area from a city pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the home rule cities act, MCL 117.1 et seq; MSA 5.2071 et seq. These two statutory provisions set forth the process by which signatures may be obtained on a petition to incorporate cities or to detach territory from cities. (1) If a sufficient number of signatures in the affected area are collected and several other procedural steps occur, the question of detachment is then presented to the voters at a general or special election. Therefore, the answer to your first question depends on whether the preparation, circulation and filing of the petition for detachment is subject to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, supra. Section 2(1) of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act defines a ballot question as follows: (1) "Ballot question" means a question which is submitted or which is intended to be submitted to a popular vote at an election whether or not it qualifies for the ballot. A petition for detachment ballot question is encompassed within the plain language of section 2(1) of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, quoted above. The Act should be applied as plainly written. Collins v. Waterford Twp School Dist, 118 MichApp 798, 804; 325 NW2d 585 (1982). You also indicate in your letter that the actual language of the question to be presented to the electorate is not included on the petition itself. This fact has no bearing on the application of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act to the detachment committee. For example, it is the responsibility of the Board of State Canvassers to prepare ballot questions for referendums on legislation, for legislative initiatives, for constitutional amendments proposed by initiative petitions and for other propositions when the actual question may not appear on the petition. MCL 168.32; MSA 6.1032, MCL 168.474; MSA 61.1474. Nevertheless, the preparation, circulation and filing of the petitions leading to these ballot questions are subject to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. By contrast with detachment petitions, most annexation petitions and all incorporation petitions are filed with the State Boundary Commission (SBC), pursuant to the state boundary commission act and section 9 of the home rule cities act. Rather than seeking an election, these petitions request the statutorily required review and approval, by the SBC, of the proposed annexation or incorporation. Thus, activities in support of such petitions are not subject to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. If, however, the SBC approves an annexation or incorporation and thereafter petitions are circulated for an election thereon, activities in support or in opposition to these election-seeking petitions would be subject to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. It is my opinion, therefore, that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act applies to activities of a group with regard to the preparation, circulation and filing of a petition for detachment of an area from a city pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the home rules cities act. Your second question is whether a municipality may expend public funds to finance the preparation, circulation and filing of a petition seeking an election for detachment of an area from a city pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the home rule cities act. This office has consistently taken the position, through various formal and informal opinions, that governmental units may not expend funds to support or oppose ballot proposals or candidates. Recently, OAG, 1987-1988, No. 6423, p 33, 35 (February 24, 1987), stated: [I]t has been the consistent position of this office that school districts and other public boards and commissions lack statutory authority to expend public funds to influence the electorate in support of or in opposition to a particular ballot proposal or candidate. OAG, 1965-1966, No 4291, p 1 (January 4, 1965); Phillips v. Maurer, 67 NY2d 672; 490 NE2d 542 (1986). A public body, however, may expend public funds to objectively inform the people on issues related to the function of the public body. OAG, 1965-1966, No 4421, p 36 (March 15, 1965); OAG, 1979-1980, No 5597, p 482 (November 28, 1979). See, also, OAG, 1987-1988, No. 6446, p 131 (June 12, 1987). However, municipalities have a public corporate concern in proceedings involving their boundaries. While their boundary concerns are not "vested right[s] or legally protected interest[s] in the boundaries of [these] ... governmental units," Midland Twp v. State Boundary Comm'n, 401 Mich 641, 664; 259 NW2d 326 (1977), nonetheless, it is historically commonplace for Michigan municipalities to allocate funds for litigation in support of or in opposition to boundary adjustment proceedings. For example, in both Kalamazoo Twp v. Kalamazoo County Supervisors, 349 Mich 273; 84 NW2d 475 (1957), and Williamston v. Wheatfield Twp, 142 MichApp 714; 370 NW2d 325 (1985), municipalities litigated boundary adjustment questions without challenge to their standing to do so. Similarly, there are at least two reported Michigan cases which provide instances of participation by a municipality in the petition process leading to annexation, again without any apparent challenge to the lawfulness of that activity. In Burton Twp v. Genesee County, 369 Mich 180, 183; 119 NW2d 548 (1963), the City of Flint had an employee collecting signatures for the annexation of a portion of a neighboring township under the then-existing statutory provisions. In Rutland Twp v. Hastings, 413 Mich 560, 563; 321 NW2d 647 (1982), the township collected the necessary signatures and filed a "blocking" petition with the State Boundary Commission. This "blocking" petition sought an annexation of township land to the City of Hastings but also had the effect of blocking the city's attempt to annex a smaller township parcel. Kenneth VerBurg, Managing the Modern Michigan Township (MSU, 2d ed, 1990), p 339, notes the active involvement of cities in the annexation process, in part, as follows: During the 1950s and 1960s, the principal annexation process was initiated by signature petitions. One percent of the registered voters in "the affected area"--the annexing city together with the entire township--had to sign to qualify a petition. But only a minimum of 10 signatures had to come from each unit. As you might guess, the main circulation effort was usually found in the area where support for annexation was strongest. At times, residents in areas near the city boundaries wanted annexation; on other occasions city leaders advocated extending city boundaries, and so initiated an annexation effort. [Emphasis added.] Finally, the appellate courts in other states have consistently held that municipalities may support and participate in the petition process for boundary adjustments. In re Petition for Annexation to Westerville, 52 Ohio App3d 8; 556 NE2d 200, 204 (1988), Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo 356; 407 P2d 325, 326-327 (1965), Morgan Hill v. San Jose, 13 CalRptr 441, 444-445; 192 CalApp2d 383 (1961), Swift v. Phoenix, 90 Ariz 331; 367 P2d 791, 792-793 (1961), and Tovey v. Charleston, 237 SC 475; 117 SE2d 872, 875 (1961). See, also, McQuillin, Mun Corp, section 7.30.30, pp 592-593, (3d Ed). In answer to your second question, it is my opinion, therefore, that a municipality may expend public funds to finance the preparation, circulation and filing of a petition seeking an election for detachment of an area from a city pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the home rule cities act. However, once the issue has been placed on the ballot, a municipality may not use public funds to influence the electorate in support of or in opposition to a proposal that is put on the ballot as a result of the petitions being filed. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1 While sections 6 and 8 of the home rule cities act also describe annexations of territory to cities, annexations of territory to cities from townships are now governed by the provisions of section 9 of the home rule cities act, the state boundary commission act, MCL 123)