## Facts

- A ballot-question committee proposed a voter-initiated constitutional amendment to change Michigan’s redistricting process.
- The proposal would repeal and replace existing (largely inoperative) apportionment provisions and create an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission with authority to draw legislative and congressional districts.
- The amendment set detailed redistricting criteria (including equal population and voting-rights compliance) and assigned administrative roles to the Secretary of State in forming the commission.
- Petition sponsors gathered sufficient signatures to require consideration by the Board of State Canvassers for placement on the November 2018 ballot.
- Opponents sought mandamus to block certification, arguing (1) the proposal was a “general revision” requiring a constitutional convention rather than an “amendment” permitted by initiative, and (2) the petition was defective for failing to identify every constitutional provision it would affect.
- The Court of Appeals rejected the challenge and ordered certification; the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the initiative was a permissible voter-initiated “amendment” under Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2, or an impermissible “general revision” requiring a constitutional convention under art. 12, § 3.
2. Whether election-law requirements invalidated the petition because it did not list all constitutional provisions that might be modified or abrogated by the amendment.

## Decision

- The court held the proposal qualified as a voter-initiated constitutional amendment, not a general revision.
- The court affirmed mandamus requiring the Board of State Canvassers to certify the petition and place the measure on the ballot.
- The court rejected the claim that the petition was invalid for failing to identify all potentially affected constitutional provisions, concluding the governing law did not impose that obligation beyond required form and inclusion of the proposed text.

## Legal Principles

- A voter-initiated amendment may add, delete, or substitute discrete constitutional provisions, even if extensive or detailed, so long as it does not replace the constitution or fundamentally transform the constitution’s basic governmental framework.
- A “general revision” is a change so sweeping that it effectively creates a new constitution or so fundamentally alters the existing document as to amount to a new constitution, and it must proceed through a constitutional convention mechanism.
- In distinguishing amendment from revision, the key inquiry is structural impact on the constitution’s general framework, not the length, complexity, or number of provisions affected.
- Courts should avoid narrowing the people’s constitution-amending power by imposing extra-textual limits on the initiative process.
- Election-law form requirements for initiative petitions do not require sponsors to enumerate every constitutional provision that could be indirectly affected where the petition otherwise satisfies required form and presents the proposed amendment text.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court allowed the redistricting initiative to proceed to the ballot, holding that creating an independent redistricting commission and revising related apportionment provisions constituted a permissible voter-initiated amendment rather than a general constitutional revision, and that the petition complied with applicable election-law requirements.


Citizens Protecting Mich.’s Const. v. Sec’y of State, 503 Mich. 42, 921 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2018)