LeRoux v. Secretary of State
Michigan Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In this original action, plaintiffs challenge the plan for redistricting Michigan’s fifteen seats in the United States House of Representatives adopted by 2001 PA 115. Plaintiffs claim that the statute was not validly enacted because the bill passed by *596the Legislature was changed by the Secretary of the Senate before presentation to the Governor for his approval. Second, they contend that the plan fails to comply with Michigan statutory requirements for congressional redistricting established by 1999 PA 221. We conclude: (1) 2001 PA 115 was validly enacted because the changes made before…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Wesberry v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Shaw v. RenoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Gaffney v. CummingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Aft Michigan v. State of MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 2015
- Studier v. Michigan Public School Employees' Retirement BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- WASH. STATE FARM BUREAU FEDER. v. GregoireWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176Supreme Court of Florida · 2012
- O’connell v. Director of ElectionsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.