Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.1017 (2026)

Corporate status of municipalities; submission of revised charter to electors; effect of unfavorable vote; termination of proceedings.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

STATE BOUNDARY COMMISSION


Act 191 of 1968


123.1017 Corporate status of municipalities; submission of revised charter to electors; effect of unfavorable vote; termination of proceedings.

Sec. 17.

    (1) The corporate status of the cities and villages proposed for consolidation shall not be changed or in any way affected until the charter takes effect.

    (2) If the charter first submitted for adoption is not approved on the first vote taken by the electors, the charter commission may reconvene and prepare a new charter or prepare modifications or amendments to the first charter as they consider necessary, and shall submit the revised charter to the electors in the same manner and on a date to be fixed as in the first instance.

    (3) If on submission of the second charter a favorable vote by a majority of the electors voting separately in the municipalities proposed for consolidation is not obtained, the consolidation proceedings shall end and the charter commission shall have no further authority to act or to submit another charter to the electors.

    (4) If a charter has not been adopted within 3 years following the date the commission's order became final, or if within the 3-year period the charter commission does not reconvene within 90 days after the election at which the first proposed charter was defeated, the consolidation proceedings shall end.

History: 1968, Act 191, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 362, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 419, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 2009

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Twp. of Hopkins v. State Boundary Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Twp. of Hopkins v. State Boundary Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 123.1017. Because plaintiffs failed to establish prejudice from the absence of promulgated rules, the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs injunctive relief and it did not err by granting summary disposition in favor of the Commission.”
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.