Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 46 / Act 261 of 1966
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.401 (2026)

County apportionment commission; apportionment of county into county commissioner districts.

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

APPORTIONMENT OF COUNTY BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS


Act 261 of 1966


46.401 County apportionment commission; apportionment of county into county commissioner districts.

Sec. 1.

    (1) Within 60 days after the publication of the latest United States official decennial census figures, the county apportionment commission in each county of this state shall apportion the county into not less than 5 nor more than 21 county commissioner districts as nearly of equal population as is practicable and within the limitations of section 2.

    (2) If a county is not in compliance with section 2 on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, the county apportionment commission of that county shall, within 30 days of the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, apportion the county in compliance with section 2. For subsequent apportionments in a county that is apportioned under this subsection, the county apportionment commission of that county shall comply with the provisions of subsection (1).

History: 1966, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1968, Act 153, Imd. Eff. June 13, 1968 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 137, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 280, Eff. Mar. 28, 2012

Constitutionality Notes:

    The Michigan Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeals ruling which held that the first sentence in section 1(2) of 2011 PA 280, MCL 46.401, violates section 29 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963. The Court of Appeals ruled that the provision constituted an improperly enacted local act and should be stricken from the act (Frank Houston et al. v Governor and Oakland County Board of Commissioners, Nos. 308724 and 308725). The Michigan Supreme Court, in its holding that the law is constitutional, stated that while the law may apply only to Oakland county immediately, the law could apply to any county in the future that meets the population requirements.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: Apportionment of Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners—1982, 321 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Apportionment of Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners—1982, 321 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] MCL 46.401, 46.404; MSA 5.359(1), 5.359(4); MCL 45.”
In Re Apportionment of Tuscola Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 644 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 4× “Following the 2000 census, the Tuscola County Apportionment Commission reapportioned the districts for the Tuscola County Board of Commissioners under MCL 46.401 et seq. In this action, the petitioner raised several challenges to the apportionment commission’s actions.”
Kizer v Livingston Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 195 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “On December 28, 1970, the Attorney General addressed the following letter opinion to the Prosecuting Attorney of Clinton County: “You have requested my opinion as to whether reapportioning the county board of commissioners *242 as required by Act 261, PA 1966 [MCLA 46.401 et…”
Nixon v. Kent Cnty., Mich., 790 F. Supp. 738 (W.D. Mich. 1992). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 46.401, et seq. The apportionment must be performed by a county apportionment commission that consists of the County Clerk, the County Treasurer, the Prosecuting Attorney, and the chairs of the two major political parties in the county.”
In Re Apportionment of Allegan Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors—1968, 164 N.W.2d 665 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to PA 1966, No 261, MCLA, §§ 46.401 — 46.415 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp §§ 5.”
Tuscola Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Tuscola Cnty. Apportionment Comm'n, 686 N.W.2d 495 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff appeals as of right from a declaratory judgment denying its claim that a county board of commissioners has a right under MCL 46.401 to apportion the county into commissioner districts.”
O'CONNOR v. Eckardt, 178 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 5× “PA 1966, No 261, MCLA § 46.401 et seq. (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
Nixon v. Kent Cnty., 76 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996). “In accordance with Michigan law, which requires redistricting after every United States census count, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.401 (1979), the five-member Kent County Apportionment Commission 5 met upon publication of the 1990 census.”
In Re Apportionment of Wayne Cnty.-2001, 637 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “; 1966 PA 293 , and ordinary counties, MCL 46.401 et seq.; 1966 PA 261 , are essentially the same.”
In re Apportionment of the Ontonagon Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors—1967, 156 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “Pursuant to the provisions of PA 1966, No 261 (MOLA, §46.401 et seq. [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
Frank Houston v. Governor (Mich. 2012). · cites it 15× “: first, following the next federal census, it limits the number of commissioner districts any county may apportion based upon its population; second, it reassigns apportionment duties to the Board of Commissioners in counties that exceed 1 million residents and that have…”
Frank Houston v. Governor (Mich. 2012). · cites it 15× “: first, following the next federal census, it limits the number of commissioner districts any county may apportion based upon its population; second, it reassigns apportionment duties to the Board of Commissioners in counties that exceed 1 million residents and that have…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.401(1) — 4 cases
Frank Houston v. Governor (Mich. 2012). “: first, following the next federal census, it limits the number of commissioner districts any county may apportion based upon its population; second, it reassigns apportionment duties to the Board of Commissioners in counties that exceed 1 million residents and that have…”
Frank Houston v. Governor (Mich. 2012). “: first, following the next federal census, it limits the number of commissioner districts any county may apportion based upon its population; second, it reassigns apportionment duties to the Board of Commissioners in counties that exceed 1 million residents and that have…”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Houston v. Governor, 295 Mich. App. 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.401(2) — 3 cases
Frank Houston v. Governor (Mich. 2012). “: first, following the next federal census, it limits the number of commissioner districts any county may apportion based upon its population; second, it reassigns apportionment duties to the Board of Commissioners in counties that exceed 1 million residents and that have…”
Frank Houston v. Governor (Mich. 2012). “: first, following the next federal census, it limits the number of commissioner districts any county may apportion based upon its population; second, it reassigns apportionment duties to the Board of Commissioners in counties that exceed 1 million residents and that have…”
Houston v. Governor, 295 Mich. App. 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
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.