Partisan Undertones Provide Backdrop
The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Houston v. Snyder – at issue is the ability of the State of Michigan to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling barring the Public Act that transferred reapportionment authority in Oakland County to the Board of Commissioners itself. Public Act 280 of 2011 will take effect next Wednesday and it is unclear if the Court will rule prior to then or not.
Prior to the law’s passage, county commission lines were drawn by an apportionment committee composed of the County Clerk, County Treasurer, County Prosecutor and the two chairs of the county’s political parties. For the first time in 2011, this committee had a Democratic majority and re-drew the lines, which were held up in court. Public Act 280 of 2011 designated the County Board of Commissioners as the apportionment committee, giving the authority back to Republicans.
Plaintiff Counsel in the matter has continued the argument that the new law is a local act as it only affects Oakland County and is therefore unconstitutional as it did not pass the Legislature with the required two-thirds majority in both chambers. The State’s attorney, meanwhile, maintains that the act could in fact affect any county that meets the population thresholds.
Additionally, the political undertone of the issue was a theme of exchanges between the Supreme Court Justices and the attorneys. Democrats had long argued that the passage of PA 280 was strictly a partisan maneuver, an argument that seemed to be strengthened by this week’s release of email communication among Oakland County officials and Republican House members discussing motives for the legislation.