In re Apportionment - Gratiot Cnty. - 2021

In re Apportionment - Gratiot County - 2021

No. 359222

Court of Appeals of Michigan

January 18, 2022

Michael J. Kelly Presiding Judge Amy Ronayne Krause Michael F. Gadola Judges

ORDER

Petitioner's request for relief is DENIED for lack of merit, and his petition for review of the Gratiot County Apportionment Plan is DISMISSED without a full hearing on the merits. MCR 7.206(D)(4).

There is no dispute that the plan was adopted within the 60-day period required by MCL 46.401(1). The petition and brief in support present no argument or analysis supporting petitioner's assertion that the plan was adopted sooner than allowed by MCL 46.407 or that premature adoption invalidates the plan. Petitioner may not "announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position." Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich. 182 203; 94 N.W.2d 388 (1959).

The apportionment plan meets the requirements of the laws of this state and is a "reasonable choice in the reasoned exercise of judgment" in light of statutory and constitutional criteria. MCL 46.404; MCL 46.406; Apportionment of Wayne County Board of Commissioners - 1982, 413 Mich. 224, 265; 321 N.W.2d 615 (1982). The plan meets the equal population requirement of MCL 46.404(a). The highest population deviation presented by the apportionment plan is 9.21%, less than the 10% allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 11.9% allowed by the Michigan Supreme Court. Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 578 U.S. 253, 255; 136 S.Ct. 1301; 194 L.Ed.2d 497 (2016); In re Apportionment of Tuscola County-2001, 466 Mich. 78, 79; 644 N.W.2d 44 (2002). A portion of District 1 is not contiguous as required by MCL 46.404(b), but that deficiency alone does not preclude adoption of the plan. Apportionment of Wayne County - 1982, 413 Mich. 260-261. To the extent District 1 lacks geographic contiguity, its lines were drawn to follow city and township boundaries and not to divide precincts within the City of Alma while still providing for an equal distribution of population among districts as required by MCL 46.404(a), (e), and (f). Due to the disparity in population between the cities and townships in Gratiot County, it is not possible to achieve equal population among districts without dividing the City of Alma among districts and combining townships and cities within districts. The plan adopted by respondent does not divide any municipality among districts except the City of Alma, and does so along precinct lines. This was a reasonable choice and the product of reasonable application of the statutory factors of MCL 46.404(a), (d) (e), and (f). Finally, petitioner has presented nothing which suggests that the new apportionment plan "unfairly alters the existing allocation of political power vis-a-vis voting strength" or that partisanship was a prominent consideration in the adoption of the plan. In re Apportionment of Clinton County - 1991 (After Remand), 193 Mich.App. 231, 239; 443 N.W.2d 448 (1992), lv den 439 Mich. 975 (1992). Kent Co Bd of Commissioners, 40 Mich.App. 508, 513-514; 198 N.W.2d 915 (1972), lv den 388 Mich. 757 (1972).

Ronayne Krause, J. I dissent from the majority's conclusion. MCL 46.404(b) states that "[a]ll districts shall be contiguous." The...