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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404 (2026)

County commissioner districts; guidelines for apportionment.

✓ 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


46.404 County commissioner districts; guidelines for apportionment.

Sec. 4.

    In apportioning the county into commissioner districts, the county apportionment commission shall be governed by the following guidelines in the stated order of importance:

    (a) All districts shall be single-member districts and as nearly of equal population as is practicable. The latest official published figures of the United States official census shall be used in this determination, except that in cases requiring division of official census units to meet the population standard, an actual population count may be used to make such division. Other governmental census figures of total population may be used if taken subsequent to the last decennial United States census and the United States census figures are not adequate for the purposes of this act. The secretary of state shall furnish the latest official published figures to the county apportionment commissions forthwith upon this act taking effect, and within 15 days after publication of subsequent United States official census figures.

    A contract may be entered into with the United States census bureau to make any special census if the latest United States decennial census figures are not adequate.

    (b) All districts shall be contiguous.

    (c) All districts shall be as compact and of as nearly square shape as is practicable, depending on the geography of the county area involved.

    (d) No township or part thereof shall be combined with any city or part thereof for a single district, unless such combination is needed to meet the population standard.

    (e) Townships, villages and cities shall be divided only if necessary to meet the population standard.

    (f) Precincts shall be divided only if necessary to meet the population standard.

    (g) Residents of state institutions who cannot by law register in the county as electors shall be excluded from any consideration of representation.

    (h) Districts shall not be drawn to effect partisan political advantage.

History: 1966, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 137, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 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 30× “For purposes of this appeal it may be assumed the apportionment was completed under MCL 46.404; MSA 5.359(4). [12] At its meeting of December 8, 1981, the WCAC received a proposed reapportionment plan from its own staff.”
Kizer v Livingston Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 195 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “1 MCLA 46.404(a); MSA 5.359(4) (a). 2 The apportionment commission in each county consists of the county clerk, county treasurer, prosecuting attorney, and county chairmen of the two political parties receiving the greatest number of votes east in the most recent secretary of…”
In Re Apportionment of Clinton Cnty.-1991, 483 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “359(4)(a) requires all districts to be "as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” the Michigan Supreme Court in Wayne Co Apportionment— 1982 held that because the standard is statutory, it is subsidiary to the constitutional standard of "one township, one commissioner”…”
Apportionment of Muskegon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners—1970, 178 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 3× “Defendant argues that the variances in population are justified in order to obtain compact square-shaped districts, avoid gerrymandering, avoid the splitting of precincts, and to avoid the division of political subdivisions as allowed by PA 1966, No 261, §4 (MCLA § 46.404[b]…”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 44× “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
In Re Apportionment of Tuscola Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 644 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 2002). “MCL 46.404. No challenge is made in this case regarding the compliance of the adopted plan with the guidelines in that section.”
O'CONNOR v. Eckardt, 178 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “” This language covers the procedural aspects of adopting a plan of apportionment as well as its constitutionality under the guidelines of MCLA § 46.404 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 5.”
Apportionment of Ionia Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 198 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “7 MCLA 46.404(a); MSA 5.359(4) (a). Cf. Apportionment of Van Buren County Board of Commissioners —1972, 39 Mich App 658 (1972), where enumeration districts were split for purposes other than the achievement of population equality.”
Apportionment of Cass Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 197 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “66% District from Average Total=3911 3 MCLA 46.404; MSA 5.359(4). 4 See Apportionment of Muskegon County Board of Commissioners — 1970, 23 Mich App 156 (1970).”
In Re Apportionment of Washtenaw Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors—1968, 164 N.W.2d 767 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “All population figures are based on the 1960 Federal decennial census with appropriate corrections to meet the guideline set forth in MCLA, § 46.404 subd (g) (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
Apportionment of Lapeer Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 198 N.W.2d 33 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “In MCLA 46.404(a); MSA 5.359(4) (a) the Legislature required the county apportionment commission to use the “latest official published figures of the United States official census” in drawing commissioner districts.”
In Re Apportionment of the Ontonagon Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 157 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “A review of the mandatory guidelines prescribed by PA 1966, No 261, § 4(a) through (h) (CL 1948, § 46.404 [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.359(4)]), convinces us that they meet Federal standards of apportionment and that they are reasonable and proper.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404(a) — 6 cases
Kizer v Livingston Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 195 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “1 MCLA 46.404(a); MSA 5.359(4) (a). 2 The apportionment commission in each county consists of the county clerk, county treasurer, prosecuting attorney, and county chairmen of the two political parties receiving the greatest number of votes east in the most recent secretary of…”
In Re Apportionment of Clinton Cnty.-1991, 483 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “359(4)(a) requires all districts to be "as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” the Michigan Supreme Court in Wayne Co Apportionment— 1982 held that because the standard is statutory, it is subsidiary to the constitutional standard of "one township, one commissioner”…”
Apportionment of Ionia Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 198 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “7 MCLA 46.404(a); MSA 5.359(4) (a). Cf. Apportionment of Van Buren County Board of Commissioners —1972, 39 Mich App 658 (1972), where enumeration districts were split for purposes other than the achievement of population equality.”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
Apportionment of Cass Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 197 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “66% District from Average Total=3911 3 MCLA 46.404; MSA 5.359(4). 4 See Apportionment of Muskegon County Board of Commissioners — 1970, 23 Mich App 156 (1970).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404(b) — 2 cases
In Re Apportionment of Clinton Cnty.-1991, 483 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “359(4)(a) requires all districts to be "as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” the Michigan Supreme Court in Wayne Co Apportionment— 1982 held that because the standard is statutory, it is subsidiary to the constitutional standard of "one township, one commissioner”…”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404(c) — 2 cases
Apportionment of Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners—1982, 321 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. 1982). “For purposes of this appeal it may be assumed the apportionment was completed under MCL 46.404; MSA 5.359(4). [12] At its meeting of December 8, 1981, the WCAC received a proposed reapportionment plan from its own staff.”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404(d) — 1 case
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404(e) — 1 case
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404(g) — 2 cases
Apportionment of Ionia Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 198 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “7 MCLA 46.404(a); MSA 5.359(4) (a). Cf. Apportionment of Van Buren County Board of Commissioners —1972, 39 Mich App 658 (1972), where enumeration districts were split for purposes other than the achievement of population equality.”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.404(h) — 3 cases
In Re Apportionment of Clinton Cnty.-1991, 483 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “359(4)(a) requires all districts to be "as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” the Michigan Supreme Court in Wayne Co Apportionment— 1982 held that because the standard is statutory, it is subsidiary to the constitutional standard of "one township, one commissioner”…”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “More specifically, Pedersen alleges that the Commission violated the law by adopting a plan that violated the requirements stated under MCL 46.404. On the basis of these allegations, he asks this Court to invalidate the plan.”
Apportionment of Kent Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 198 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
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.