I cannot believe the fervor behind Rick Snyder's approval of the "Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act." Based on what I've heard is that he has killed democracy. He has instituted a dictatorship, and will send his "minions" out to destroy Michigan's cities. Their democratically elected local governments will be taken away against their will, and be taken over. He is committing an un-American act, something reserved for banana republics and violent unstable nations.
Well, I have news for you. All this is perfectly legal within Michigan and national law, and the justice system will work against you.
According to a March 15th article on Slate, Rick Snyder is breaking no constitutional barriers. He is only doing what Michigan, and some other states, have done for a long time.
A State's Right
In 1907, the Supreme Court decided, in Hunter v. Pittsburgh, that under the Constitution local governments are nothing more than "convenient agencies for exercising … such powers as may be entrusted to them" by the state. As a result, "the state may modify or withdraw all such power, may take without compensation such property, hold it for itself, or vest it with other agencies, expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or part of it with another municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the corporation … with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their protest."
Many American cities have been annexed by other cities against the protest of their residents. In fact most of the nation's largest cities have grown through such forcible annexations of neighboring territory and smaller cities. Not only can existing towns and cities be absorbed into larger governments, but states can also decree that an unincorporated community simply be governed by a neighboring city without being formally annexed—and without its residents having a vote in the election of that city's government. Thirty-five states allow local governments to exercise such "extraterritorial jurisdiction" over people and property outside city limits. As a result, citizens can be regulated, fined, and taxed by local governments they did not elect.
It goes on to point out that this is nothing new in Michigan:
So there's nothing in the Constitution that stops state-level takeovers of cities and school districts. Indeed state governments have taken control of troubled cities in the past. In 1991 Massachusetts placed the Boston suburb of Chelsea into receivership, reducing its elected government to an advisory capacity and vesting power in an appointed receiver. In 2000 New Jersey placed the city of Camden into receivership... [In] 2002—nine years before this proposal was a gleam in Rick Snyder's eye—Michigan declared a fiscal emergency and appointed an emergency manager in the city of Flint, divesting the elected government of control over the city's finances. In fact Michigan has declared seven local financial emergencies since 1990, when the state first acquired the authority to put unelected emergency managers in charge of troubled cities. According to the state's Web site, three Michigan cities are currently run by state-appointed financial managers.
So the new law isn't a radically new or unprecedented affront to local democracy. It's a relatively modest expansion of a power Michigan already has.
I have read comments here that he is imposing economic martial law, and that you are pissed because of state takeovers. But I know why you're really upset. Union-busting and partisan spite.
People here are upset because these arrangements will end union contracts. That was why people here were worried. That union power and density will decrease, causing weakened Democratic power.
Let me ask: if terminating union contracts were not allowed in this new set-up, would you have gotten as upset? I'll answer for you: no. You would not. I would not believe you if you said otherwise.
Okay, too harsh. Maybe you would have disapproved, but I doubt you'd get so worried and start protesting.
You wanted to protect unions, which is fine, of course (and actually good), but don't act like you need local government to be protected. I've never seen people so determined to protect local government.
Why don't you look forward to the fact that in 4-8 years, it's likely that a Democrat will be governor of the state again. Will you object to this, then? No, you wouldn't. If anything, you'd look forward to all the cities you can take over and save from Republican control (if they went bankrupt).
And to those of you who think that they are targeting minority communities, remember this: MINORITY COMMUNITIES ARE USUALLY POOR. They are more likely to go bankrupt, and hence be taken over by EFMs.
And democracy didn't die. If I had a nickel for every time someone used that phrase on this site, I could buy a luxury penthouse apartment on 5th Avenue...with enough left over to buy 3 Ferraris. The only way democracy could die is if Rick Snyder and the Republican banned all state and local elections in Michigan and declared themselves permanent dictators. And the last time I checked, they can't do that. Don't make stupid jokes that they would, they CAN'T. These voters will still exist to vote in state and local elections, like the state legislature.
Anyway, this is the consequence of elections. It doesn't matter who did and didn't vote, this is the result you get. And if you don't like it, you can vote them out next time. But please, for the love of God, do some research before you go nuts.