Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.21 (2026)

Charter amendment; procedure.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE HOME RULE CITY ACT

Act 279 of 1909

117.21 Charter amendment; procedure.

Sec. 21.

(1) An amendment to an existing city charter, whether the charter was adopted under this act or formerly granted or passed by the legislature for the government of a city, may be proposed by the legislative body of a city on a 3/5 vote of the members-elect or by an initiatory petition. If the amendment is proposed by the legislative body of the city, the amendment shall be submitted to the electors of the city at the next regular municipal or general state election, or at a special election, held not less than 60 days after the proposal of the amendment. If the amendment is proposed by an initiatory petition, the amendment shall be submitted to the electors of the city at the next regular municipal or general state election held in the city not less than 90 days after the filing of the petition.

(2) Proposed charter amendments and other questions to be submitted to the electors shall be published in full with existing charter provisions that would be altered or abrogated by the proposed charter amendment or other question. The purpose of the proposed charter amendment or question shall be designated on the ballot in not more than 100 words, exclusive of caption, that shall consist of a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the amendment or question in language that does not create prejudice for or against the amendment or question. The text of the statement shall be submitted to the attorney general for approval as to compliance with this requirement before being printed. In addition, the proposed charter amendment in full shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each polling place. The form in which a proposed charter amendment or question shall appear on the ballot, unless provided for in the initiatory petition, shall be determined by resolution of the legislative body, and if provided for by the initiatory petition, the legislative body may add an explanatory caption.

(3) A proposed charter amendment shall be confined to 1 subject. If the subject of a charter amendment includes more than 1 related proposition, each proposition shall be separately stated to afford an opportunity for an elector to vote for or against each proposition. If a proposed charter amendment is rejected at an election, the amendment shall not be resubmitted for a period of 2 years.

(4) A city charter formerly granted by a different act of the state legislature, including the charter of a city of the fourth class, that adopts or comes under any part of this act by amendment under this section, and not by general revision, adoption, or incorporation under this act, may again be amended under this section, as to the part or parts that are amended, by re-enacting under this section that part or parts of the original act of incorporation that existed before any amendment was made under this act. The part or parts of the original act of incorporation that are re-enacted shall not be construed as operating or coming under the provisions of this act in any manner, it being the intention to permit a city described in this subsection, to adopt by amendment any part of the provisions of this act permissible or to withdraw from the provisions of this act.

(5) Propositions and questions shall be proposed, initiated, submitted and canvassed in a manner similar to that provided for charter amendments.

History: 1909, Act 279, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- Am. 1911, Act 203, Eff. Aug. 1, 1911 ;-- Am. 1913, Act 5, Imd. Eff. Mar. 11, 1913 ;-- CL 1915, 3324 ;-- Am. 1917, Act 6, Imd. Eff. Mar. 9, 1917 ;-- Am. 1917, Act 40, Eff. Aug. 10, 1917 ;-- Am. 1917, Act 232, Imd. Eff. May 10, 1917 ;-- Am. 1919, Act 403, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 279, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 2257 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 279, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 1, Imd. Eff. Jan. 23, 1947 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 87, Imd. Eff. May 12, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 117.21 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 117, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 303, Eff. Jan. 1, 2005

Compiler's Notes:

Act 203 of 1911, which amended this section, was held unconstitutional and void. See note to MCL 117.1.

The 1911 amendment reads as follows: “Sec. 21. Any existing charter, whether passed pursuant to the provisions of this act or by the State legislature, may from time to time be amended as follows: An amendment may be proposed by the legislative body on a two-thirds vote of the members-elect or by an initiatory petition as herein provided, and shall be submitted to the electors as herein provided at the next general or special election. When it originates in the legislative body it shall be published and remain on the table for thirty days before action is taken thereon. The form in which any proposed amendment shall be submitted on the ballot, unless provided for in the initiatory petition, shall be determined by the legislative body.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Kment v. City of Detroit, 311 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kment v. City of Detroit, 311 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “See MCL 117.21; MSA 5.2100. Kment has retreated from this argument on rehearing, and, in the face of Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v Detroit, 391 Mich 44 ; 214 NW2d 803 (1974), concedes that the possibility that the charter might be amended by ordinance does not automatically…”

Herp v. Lansing City Clerk, 416 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “2084(7), and MCL 117.21; MSA 5.2100. If plaintiffs' position were sustained, it would result in building authority full faith and credit general obligation bond referendum petitions being treated differently than city full faith and credit general building bond referendum…”

Bivens v. Grand Rapids, 505 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. 1993). “15 MCL 117.21; MSA 5.2100. 16 Because the city ordinance goes beyond the specific power conferred in the city charter, it is unnecessary to consider the alternative basis of the Court of Appeals decision, that home rule cities are preempted from imposing civil liability on…”

Graham v. Miller, 84 N.W.2d 46 (Mich. 1957). · cites it 2× “" CL 1948, § 117.21, as amended by PA 1955, No 117 (Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 5.”

Settles v. Detroit City Clerk, 427 N.W.2d 188 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “2082(6), while the procedure is addressed in the last sentence of MCL 117.21; MSA 5.2100: Propositions and questions shall be proposed, initiated, submitted and canvassed in a manner similar to that provided for charter amendments.”

Michigan Pub. Serv. Co. v. City of Cheboygan, 37 N.W.2d 116 (Mich. 1949). “…1929 (1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 121, par. 3, p. 334). * Amendment by Act No. 87, Pub. Acts 1947 (see 1 Comp. Laws 1948, § 117.21), does not apply.”

Vasser v. City of Muskegon, 329 N.W.2d 690 (Mich. 1982). “There are specific statutory requirements set forth in MCL 117.21; MSA 5.2100 which must be satisfied in order to amend a charter.”

Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. City of Detroit, 200 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “MCLA 117.21; MSA 5.2100. Hence, the mayor, the council and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not change the involved charter provision without approval of the electorate.”

Attorney Gen. Ex Rel. Reuter v. City of Bay City, 54 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1952). “Plaintiff asserts and defendants do not deny that such submission was improper for the applicable statute (PA 1947, No 87, § 21 [CL 1948, § 117.21 (Stat Ann 1949 Rev § 5.2100) ]) provides for the amendment of an existing city charter originally submitted by initiatory petition…”

Clarkston Cares 2022 v. Jennifer Speagle (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “The statutes relevant to this appeal are sections 21, 22, and 25 of the Home Rule City Act [HRCA], MCL 117.21, MCL 117.22, and MCL 117.25, and section 646a of the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.”

Midland v. Arbury, 197 N.W.2d 134 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “MCLA 117.21; MSA 5.2100. Plaintiff contends that the proposal is a charter revision which is a totally different concept, and is procedurally controlled by MCLA 117.”

Horace Sheffield III v. Detroit City Clerk (Mich. 2021). · cites it 3× “18; MCL 117.21; MCL 117.25; Kelly v Laing, 259 Mich 212, 217 (1932) (“Basically, revision suggests fundamental change, while amendment is a correction of detail.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.21(1) — 3 cases

Clarkston Cares 2022 v. Jennifer Speagle (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The statutes relevant to this appeal are sections 21, 22, and 25 of the Home Rule City Act [HRCA], MCL 117.21, MCL 117.22, and MCL 117.25, and section 646a of the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.”

Horace Sheffield III v. Detroit City Clerk (Mich. 2021). “18; MCL 117.21; MCL 117.25; Kelly v Laing, 259 Mich 212, 217 (1932) (“Basically, revision suggests fundamental change, while amendment is a correction of detail.”

City of Farmington v. Farmington Survey Comm. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.21(2) — 3 cases

Gary Boike v. Patrick Green (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.21(3) — 1 case

Warren City Council v. Sonja Buffa (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.