Whether the County Apportionment Commission adopted an apportionment plan that complied with MCL 46.404; MCL 46.404(a); Population deviation; MCL 46.404(b) (requirement that all districts be “contiguous”); MCL 46.404(d) & (e) (preserving the integrity of township, village, city, & precinct lines); MCL 46.404(h); Impermissible purpose of gaining partisan political advantage

Holding that respondent-County Apportionment Commission adopted an apportionment plan that did not comply with MCL 46.404, the court invalidated and vacated the plan, and remanded “to the Commission to adopt an apportionment plan that complies with the law.” The commissioners adopted the new apportionment plan using the data from the 2020 census. Petitioner-Pedersen argued that “the apportionment plan the Commission adopted—the McMichael Plan—did not comply with the requirements of MCL 46.404 and does not comply with the” Fourteenth Amendment’s requirements. First addressing MCL 46.404(a)’s requirements, the court noted that the “total departure was approximately 11.3% (6.286 + 5.019 = 11.305). The total departure was less than the 11.9% set by our Supreme Court as the maximum departure.” Thus, Pedersen did not show “that the McMichael Plan failed to comply with the requirement that the districts be composed of single-member districts with as of nearly equal population as practicable under MCL 46.404(a).” However, because “the McMichael Plan violated the contiguity requirement stated under MCL 46.404(b),” the court had to invalidate it, and remanded “to the Commission to adopt a new apportionment plan that complies with MCL 46.404(b).” To provide guidance on remand, it also addressed Pedersen’s additional arguments. It concluded that the McMichael Plan did not violate MCL 46.404(d) and (e), finding that Pederson did not “present sufficient evidence that the Commission violated the law when it exercised its discretion to adopt a plan that divided Dowagiac in order to meet the population requirements rather than splitting other townships and precincts.” As to MCL 46.404(h), the court noted it did not have to resolve “whether the Commission divided Dowagiac for an impermissible purpose” given that it was remanding for failure to comply with MCL 46.404(b). “Rather, if the Commission should again select an apportionment plan that divides Dowagiac on remand, we instruct the Commission to explain how that split was necessary to meet the population requirements and preserve the integrity of other municipal boundaries.”