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. 6751 March 5, 1993 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25--requirement that a section or sections of an act to be amended must be reenacted and published at length Pursuant to section 624g of the Michigan Election Law, the City of Detroit is eligible for reimbursement by the State of Michigan for the costs of conducting the 1992 presidential primary election except for the costs attributable to a local initiative ordinance that was voted upon by its electors at the same election. Douglas B. Roberts State Treasurer Treasury Building 430 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48922 You have asked whether the City of Detroit is eligible for reimbursement by the State of Michigan for the cost of conducting the presidential primary election on March 17, 1992, since a local initiative ordinance was voted upon by its electors at the same election. In section 624g of the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.624g; MSA 6.1624(7), the Legislature has provided: (1) The state shall reimburse each county, city, and township for the cost of conducting a presidential primary election. The reimbursement shall not exceed the verified account of actual costs of the election. (2) Payment shall be made upon presentation and approval of a verified account of actual costs to the department of treasury, local government audit division, after the department of treasury and the secretary of state agree as to what constitutes valid costs of conducting an election. Reimbursable costs do not include salaries of permanent local officials; the cost of reusable supplies and equipment; or costs attributable to local special elections held in conjunction with the presidential primary. The state shall disapprove costs not in compliance with this section. (4) The legislature shall appropriate from the general fund of the state an amount necessary to implement this section. [ Emphasis added.] In section 101 of 1991 PA 114, the Legislature appropriated $4,200,000 to reimburse local units of government for the costs of conducting presidential primary elections. Section 1037 of that same appropriation provided: (1) The state shall reimburse each county, city, and township for the cost of conducting the presidential primary in the amounts and in the manner as stated in this section. Payments shall not exceed the actual cost of the election. Payments shall be made upon presentation and approval of a verified account of actual costs to the department of state, elections division. Reimbursable costs shall not include salaries of local officials other than temporary local officials; county or local employees or officials that have been given election day off from work with pay and do not work on election business; and costs of reusable supplies and equipment. A city shall not be reimbursed for its costs of conducting the primary if the city is conducting a regularly scheduled election on the same day. A county, city, or township shall not be reimbursed for its costs of conducting the primary if the county, city, or township places or causes to be placed another question on the ballot at the primary. Costs not in compliance with this section shall be disapproved. To qualify for reimbursement, a county, city, or township shall submit its verified account of actual costs within 60 days after the date of the primary. The state treasurer shall issue a payment to a county, city, or township from the appropriation in section 101 after the secretary of state has notified the state treasurer of the approved amount. (2) Any funds appropriated for the purpose of subsection (1) that are unexpended at the end of this fiscal year shall be considered a work project and may be carried forward into the succeeding fiscal year. [ Emphasis added.] In section 624g(2) of the Michigan Election Law, the Legislature has made it clear that the state shall reimburse local units of government for the costs of conducting a presidential primary election, except for certain costs including "costs attributable to local special elections held in conjunction with the presidential primary." However, in section 1037(1) of 1991 PA 114, the Legislature has provided that, if a local unit of government places another question on the primary ballot, it will not be reimbursed for any of its costs in conducting the presidential primary election. This provision plainly conflicts with and, in effect, is an attempt to amend section 624g of the Michigan Election Law. In Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25, the People have provided: No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only. The section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted and published at length. In Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210, 281; 200 NW2d 628 (1972), the Supreme Court adopted a succinct formulation of that constitutional requirement, ruling that: [Y]ou cannot amend statute C even by putting in statute B specific words to amend statute C, unless you republish statute C as well as statute B under Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25. If a bill under consideration is intended whether directly or indirectly to revise, alter, or amend the operation of previous statutes, then the constitution, unless and until appropriately amended, requires that the Legislature do in fact what it intends to do by operation. 388 Mich at 285. The sixth sentence of section 1037(1) of 1991 PA 114, which prohibits state reimbursement to a local unit of government that places another question on the presidential primary ballot, was enacted without reenactment and publication of the provisions of section 624g of the Michigan Election Law as required by Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25. That sentence is, therefore, unconstitutional; thus, the City of Detroit is not precluded from state reimbursement for the cost of conducting the presidential primary election because a local initiative ordinance was voted upon by its electors at the same election. Since the appropriation of $4,200,000 in section 101 of 1991 PA 114, to reimburse local units of government for the costs of conducting presidential primary elections, may be given effect without the unconstitutional language in section 1037(1) of the same statute, it is valid. MCL 8.5; MSA 2.216; OAG, 1989-1990, No 6603, 229, 244 (October 9, 1989). It is my opinion, therefore, that the City of Detroit is eligible for reimbursement by the State of Michigan for the costs of conducting the 1992 presidential primary election except for the costs attributable to a local initiative ordinance that was voted upon by its electors at the same election. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General