Press enter after choosing selection

Wheeler Files Lawsuit On County Board Issue

Wheeler Files Lawsuit On County Board Issue image
Parent Issue
Day
18
Month
April
Year
1968
Copyright
Copyright Protected
Rights Held By
Donated by the Ann Arbor News. © The Ann Arbor News.
OCR Text

Dr. Albert H. Wheeler today asked the Washtenaw Circui Court to order the apportion ment of the county into equa population election districts and to find that Ann Arbor's mayor has no legal authority to make appointments to the County Board of Supervisors. This legal action comes at a time when the mayor's proposed appointments are being vigorously opposed by Negroes and whites for whom Wheeler is one spokesman. The complaint filed this morning by Wheeler as an individual citizen contends that the U.S. Supreme Court decisión April 1 bringing local government under the "one man, one vote" rule "removes the cloiids of unconstitutionality cast" on a 1966 state law which required reapportionment of county boards. Thus, t asks the court to direct the Apportionment Commission which was created under that act to show cause why it should not be ordered to "apportion Washtenaw County into supervisor election districts in accordance with said act." The show cause hearing is set for May 2 before Judge William F. I Ager Jr. The commission, which consists of the county prosecuting [attorney, clerk and treasurer, and the chairman of the Democratie and Republlcan County committees, met under the law starting in March, 1967, and abandoned the task of Michigan Supuemë Court gave an advisory opinión holding the state law unconstitutional. That opinión was based on the fact that the "one - man, one - vote'" rule and the law's provisión of set sizes for the boards aocording to a county's population conflict with the Michigan constitutional provisión that each township have one supervisor. ; In his complaint, Wheeler states that "some doubt has existed in Michigan judicial circles during the last two years as to the validity of Public Act 261 of 1966 and as to the correctness of the decisión of the Michigan Supreme Court" in a Kent County case. These doubts were predicated upon the question as to whether the equal proteetion clause of the "Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution required county governments to be elected as a "one - man, one-vote" basis as was required of state legislatures under the U. S. court's Reynolds versus Sims decisión, the complaint states. "These doubts . . . have now jeen firmly resolved by the Supreme Court of the U. S." inl ;he case from Midland County, I Texas, which was decided April ., according to the complaint. That opinión said in part: "The equal proteetion clause does not, of course, require that he state never distinguish beween citizens, but only that ;he distinctions that are made not be arbitrary or invidious. ?he conclusión of Reynolds ver-[i sus Sims was that bases other than population were not acceptable grounds for distinguishing among citizens when determining the size of districts used to elect members of state legislatures. "We hold today only that the Constitution permits no substantial variation from equal population in drawing districts for units oí local government having geueral powers over the entire geographic área 'served by the body." The Washtenaw County board "exercises general delegated [egislative power throughout Washtenaw County in almost precisely the fashion of Midland County, Texas," the Wheeler complainí contends. The Texas decisión "removes the clouds of unconstitutionality cast on the Michigan act by the Michigan Supreme Court in its 1967 advisory opinión to the governor and restores Public Act 261 to good standing as a valid statute duly enacted by the Michigan legislature," it alleges. Thus, it concludes, the Apportionment Commission as designated in that law "has a right and a duty to ápportion theí county under the provisions ofl said act." The complaint cites the City! Charter provisión that "the rep-l resentatives of the city on the I Board of Supervisors shall bel the assessor and such electorsl of the city, having the 1 tions required by this charter! for eligibility for elective city I offices, :ïs the mayor shall ap-l point with the approval of the I council. One shall be appointedl from each ward, and the others, I exclusive of the assessor, shall I be appointed at large. Such ap-l pointments shall be made with- out regard to political il tions." A 1909 state law under whichi Ann Arbor with a 1960 population of 67,340 could, as its charter provided, elect or appoint 10 supervisors was held unconstitutional in the Kent County casel and was repealed by Public Actj 261 requiring apportionmentj Wheeler's complaint alleges. The mayor is therefore "utterly lacking in statutory authority to appoint any" persons to the Washtenaw County Board of Supervisors, Wheeler argües. He asks that the court order the Apportionment Commission to redistrict the county within 60 days and that it find that the "mayor lacks power to appoint any persons to the defendant Washtenaw County Board of Supervisors and to restrain him by order f rom attemptingB to appoint any persons to the! defendant board . . ." Wheeler also contends thatl he, as a resident elector of the I city, is deprived of equal pro-j tection of the laws because (1)1 the city's representation is "in- sufficient in numbers to prop-l erly reflect the ratio" of cityl population to that of the coun-l I ty (2) the township residentsl I are permitted to elect their su-l Ipervisors and as a city resident! I he must "submit to the 1 I ment of his supervisors by the I mayor .... and (3) that he I pays taxes to the county m l"amounts disproportionate tol Ihis representation on the board . . and is to that extent, taxed - - _ I ■ without representation in viola-I Ition of the due process clausej lof the Fourteenth Amendmentl land the Michigan Constitution."] Wheeler asks that the courtl Ifind that the Board of Super-I Ivisors is "unconstitutionallyl Icomposed" and that it compelí the board to establish districtsl from which supervisors can bel elected by the voters "on a one-l man, one-vote basis as constitu-l tionally required." He also asks that the super-l visors be enjoined from levyingl taxes or "acting as a 1 tive body in any manner what-l ever" pending constitutionall apportionment of the countyl and elections of supervisors I fram the new districts.