-
MIKE COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL
CONST 1963, ART 9, § 19: Application of the exemption from the prohibition against stock ownership under
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Const 1963, art 9, § 19. INVESTMENTS:
MICHIGAN STRATEGIC FUND:
Const 1963, art 9, § 19 allows the State to invest funds held as permanent funds or endowment funds – including, but not limited to, the three funds listed in Ballot Proposal 02-2 – in the stock of a company as provided by law.
An act of the Legislature giving a fund the title "permanent fund" is not, by itself, sufficient to qualify the fund for the stock ownership exemption under Const 1963, art 9, § 19. A fund so designated must also possess the substantive characteristics of a "permanent fund" as that term is used in the Constitution.
Sections 88e, 88f, 88g, and 88h of 2005 PA 225, MCL 125.2088e – 125.2088(h), which require the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate various investment programs and create the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund as a permanent fund, are constitutional under Const 1963, art 9, § 19.
Opinion No. 7195 July 19, 2006
Honorable Leon Drolet Honorable Jack Brandenburg
State Representative State Representative
The Capitol The Capitol
Lansing, MI Lansing, MI
You have asked three questions concerning the constitutional prohibition against the State's investments in stock. Your questions may be stated as follows:
1. Does Const 1963, art 9, § 19, allow any permanent fund that was not specifically listed in Proposal 02-2 – the ballot proposal to extend the exemption from the prohibition against stock ownership to other permanent and endowment funds – to invest in stock?
2. Whether a legislative act giving a fund the title "permanent fund" is sufficient to qualify the fund for the stock ownership exemption under Const 1963, art 9, § 19?
3. Whether sections 88e, 88f, 88g, and 88h of 2005 PA 225, which required the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate investment programs and created a new permanent fund, the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund, violate the prohibition against State stock ownership in Const 1963, art 9, § 19?
You first ask whether Const 1963, art 9, § 19 allows any permanent fund to invest in the stock of a company.
Michigan has a long history of prohibiting the State from investing in the stock of companies or corporations. The reason for this prohibition lies in Michigan's experience in engaging in works of internal improvement:
The legislature, pursuant to grant of authority contained in Article XII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution of 1835, authorized the governor to incur a debt in excess of five million dollars and embarked upon an ambitious program of constructing three railroads and two canals. The intervening financial panic forced the state to sell these projects, some of which were only partially completed, at a great sacrifice, leaving the state with a huge debt. It should be noted that one of the canal projects which commenced at the City of Mount Clemens to extend to the City of Kalamazoo was later abandoned as impractical and never completed. See this history ably reviewed in Attorney General, ex rel.
Barbour v Pingree, 120 Mich. 550 (1899). [OAG, 1963-1964, No 4146, p 75, 77 (April
10, 1963).]
After this experience, Michigan's 1850 Constitution prohibited the State from: (a) being a party to internal improvements;1 (b) issuing evidence of indebtedness;2 (c) lending the credit of the State;3 and
(d) owning private stock:4
The state shall not subscribe to, or be interested in, the stock of any company, association, or corporation.
1 Const 1850, art 14, § 9.
2 Const 1850, art 14, § 7.
3 Const 1850, art 14, § 6.
4 Const 1850, art 14, § 8.
The Michigan Constitution of 1908 contained a substantially similar provision.1 The Michigan Constitution of 1963 revised this language to allow the Legislature to permit public employee retirement funds and endowment funds created for charitable or educational purposes to invest in corporate stock. Before its amendment by Proposal 02-2, Const 1963, art 9, § 19 read:
The state shall not subscribe to, nor be interested in the stock of any company, association or corporation, except that funds accumulated to provide retirement or pension benefits for public officials and employees may be invested as provided by law; and endowment funds created for charitable or educational purposes may be invested as provided by law governing the investment of funds held in trust by trustees.
As a result of the change in the Constitution and the enactment of authorizing legislation, an investment fiduciary may now invest not more than 70% of a public employee retirement system's assets in stock. See section 14 of the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act, 1965 PA 314, MCL 38.1134.
By approving Proposal 02-2 at the August 6, 2002, statewide election, the people revised Const 1963, art 9, § 19 to allow the Legislature to permit funds held as permanent funds or endowment funds in addition to those for charitable or educational purposes to be invested in corporate stock. As amended, Const 1963, art 9, § 19 reads:
The state shall not subscribe to, nor be interested in the stock of any company, association or corporation, except as follows:
(a) Funds accumulated to provide retirement or pension benefits for public officials and employees may be invested as provided by law.
(b) Endowment funds created for charitable or educational purposes may be invested as provided by law governing the investment of funds held in trust by trustees.
1 Const 1908, art 10, § 13.
(c) Funds held as permanent funds or endowment funds other than those described in subdivision (b) may be invested as provided by law.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, other state funds or money may be invested in accounts of a bank, savings and loan association, or credit union organized under the laws of this state or federal law, as provided by law. [Const 1963, art 9, § 19; emphasis added.]
Your questions concern only subdivision (c) of this provision.
This amendment to Const 1963, art 9, § 19 was initiated by the Michigan Legislature. Proposed constitutional amendments agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in each house of the Legislature must be submitted to the electors at the next general election or special election as directed by the Legislature.1 Senate Joint Resolution T, 2002 Regular Session, proposed amending sections 19, 35, 36, and 37 of article 9 to the State Constitution. After the Legislature agreed to Senate Joint Resolution T, Proposal 02-2 was placed on the August 6, 2002, statewide ballot. The ballot proposal stated:
PROPOSAL 02-2
A PROPOSAL TO ALLOW CERTAIN PERMANENT AND ENDOWMENT FUNDS TO BE INVESTED AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND INCREASE ALLOWED SPENDING FOR STATE PARKS, LOCAL PARKS,
AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
Allow certain permanent and endowment funds, including Natural Resources Trust Fund, State Parks Endowment Fund and Veterans['] Trust Fund, to be invested as provided by law, eliminating prior restriction on investing in stocks.
Increase Natural Resources Trust Fund cap on assets from $400 million to $500 million.
1 Const 1963, art 12, § 1.
Allow the Natural Resources Trust Fund to continue to annually expend up to 331/3% of Fund royalties or other revenues, up to a new asset cap of $500 million.
Increase allowed State Parks Endowment Fund spending to include interest and earnings and up to 50% of funds received from Natural Resources Trust Fund.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Yes
No
[Emphasis added.]
Your letter questions whether voters may have been confused by that language of the ballot proposal to understand that the only permanent and endowment funds that may be allowed to invest in stocks are the three listed ones, the Natural Resources Trust Fund, State Parks Endowment Fund, and Veterans' Trust Fund. Your question raises issues of constitutional construction.
The primary objective in interpreting a constitutional provision is to determine the text's meaning to the ratifiers, the people, at the time of ratification. Wayne County v Hathcock, 471 Mich 445, 468; 684 NW2d 765 (2004). This rule of "common understanding" means:
"A constitution is made for the people and by the people. The interpretation that should be given it is that which reasonable minds, the great mass of the people themselves, would give it. 'For as the Constitution does not derive its force from the convention which framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any dark or abstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the sense designed to be conveyed.'" [Traverse City School Dist v Attorney General, 384 Mich 390, 405; 185 NW2d 9 (1971), quoting Cooley's Constitutional Limitations 81, emphasis removed.]
If the meaning of an amendment is apparent from the plain language of the text, it is unnecessary to consider its history and purpose and the circumstances in which it was ratified. County Rd Ass'n of Michigan v Governor, 474 Mich 11, 17; 705 NW2d 680 (2005).
Additional principles of law have been developed in cases where the language of a ballot proposal is alleged to have been incomplete or to have created a misimpression about the purpose of the amendment. "Where a ballot proposal contains omissions or defects likely to have misled voters as to its intent and purpose, the remedy is to void the election." Smith v Scio Twp, 173 Mich App 381, 389- 390; 433 NW2d 855 (1988), citing Bailey v Muskegon County Bd of Comm'rs, 122 Mich App 808; 333
NW2d 144 (1983); Delta College v Saginaw County Bd of Comm'rs, 395 Mich 562; 236 NW2d 425 (1975); and West Shore Community College v Manistee County Bd of Comm'rs, 389 Mich 287, 296; 205 NW2d 441 (1973). But a finding of such a defect is not to be made lightly. In a case in which matters of procedure and the adequacy of ballot language were challenged, City of Jackson v Revenue Comm'r, 316 Mich 694, 718; 26 NW2d 569 (1947), the Court stated:
"[T]he court must necessarily have in mind the universal rule that, whenever a constitutional amendment is attacked as not constitutionally adopted, the question presented is, not whether it is possible to condemn, but whether it is possible to uphold; that every reasonable presumption, both of law and fact, is to be indulged in favor of the legality of the amendment, which will not be overthrown, unless illegality appears beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citations omitted.]
Citing that rule from City of Jackson, the Supreme Court observed in Massey v Sec'y of State, 457 Mich 410, 420; 579 NW2d 862 (1998), that "arcane or obscure interpretations" are to be avoided in determining whether the voters were misled by the wording of a ballot proposal. If the language of a ballot proposal is not fatally defective, requiring that the election be voided, the meaning of the amendment must be determined from the language of the amendment, not the ballot description:
It is the actual language of the amendment, and not its ballot description drawn by the State Board of Canvassers, which is the law of the state. The principle that a constitutional amendment must be construed in the light of the intent of the people by whom it was adopted does not justify a construction in accordance with a ballot description at variance with the actual unambiguous amendatory language. If the language of the amendment and that of its ballot description does not convey precisely the same meaning, the discrepancy is not relevant to the construction of the plain language of the amendment itself. [Bailey, 122 Mich App at 824.]
Subdivision (c) in Const 1963, art 9, § 19 states that "[f]unds held as permanent funds or endowment funds other than those described in subdivision (b) may be invested as provided by law." This language does not identify the Natural Resources Trust Fund, the State Parks Endowment Fund, or the Veterans' Trust Fund as permanent or endowment funds, nor does it state that they are the only permanent or endowment funds that are exempt from the prohibition against State stock ownership.
Before the people approved Proposal 02-2 in 2002, Const 1963, art 9, § 19 stated that endowment funds created for charitable or educational purposes were exempt from the prohibition against State stock ownership. When the people approved Proposal 02-2, they expanded this exemption to include permanent funds and endowment funds other than those created for charitable or educational purposes without limiting the exemption to particular endowment or permanent funds.
While Proposal 02-2 specifically identified the Natural Resources Trust Fund, the State Parks Endowment Fund, and the Veterans' Trust Fund as funds no longer subject to the prohibition against stock ownership, neither the text of the proposed constitutional amendment nor the language of the ballot proposal limited the amendment to those funds. Proposal 02-2 amended the constitutional sections pertaining to those three funds, Const 1963, art 9, §§ 35, 36[1]1, and 37, but it also amended Const 1963, art 9, § 19 to eliminate the prohibition against State ownership of stock for other unspecified permanent or endowment funds.
The language of Proposal 02-2 stated that the proposed constitutional amendment would allow "certain permanent and endowment funds, including" the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, the State Parks Endowment Fund, and the Michigan Veterans' Trust Fund to invest as provided by law. (Emphasis added.) The word "including" as used in Proposal 02-2 contemplates the listing of an
1 Former § 36, compiled as art 9, § 36[1], was renumbered as art 9, § 35a by Senate Joint Resolution T of 2002.
incomplete set of the permanent or endowment funds that could be invested as provided by law.1 If Proposal 02-2 was intended to limit the exemption from the prohibition against State stock ownership to only the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, the State Parks Endowment Fund, and the Michigan Veterans' Trust Fund, it would have so stated.
Your letter also notes that, before the people voted on Proposal 02-2, the same Legislature that passed Senate Joint Resolution T, the 2002 Regular Session, enacted2 six public acts in 2002 to implement the constitutional amendment. These six acts were to take effect only if the voters adopted Proposal 02-2. Three of these six public acts, 2002 PA 52, 2002 PA 53, and 2002 PA 54, permitted the State Treasurer to invest assets of the three permanent and endowment funds named in Proposal 02-2 in the same manner as an investment fiduciary under the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act, 1965 PA 314. The three other public acts – whose funds were not specifically mentioned in Proposal 02-2 – also authorized the State Treasurer to invest assets of those funds in the same manner as an investment fiduciary under the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act: 2002 PA 55 amended the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund; 2002 PA 56 amended the Game and Fish Protection Trust Fund; and 2002 PA 57 amended the Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Endowment Fund. While those public acts could not alter the meaning of the amendment,1 these circumstances surrounding the adoption of Proposal 02-2 support the conclusion that, at the time of ratification, the exemption from the prohibition against stock ownership for other permanent or endowment funds was not meant to be limited to the three permanent and endowment funds named in Proposal 02-2.
1 The goal is to determine the "common" understanding of constitutional terms and "consideration of dictionary definitions is appropriate" to make that determination. Michigan Rd Builders Ass'n v Dep't of Management and Budget, 197 Mich App 636, 644; 495 NW2d 843 (1992). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (2003) defines "including" as "to take in or comprise as a part of a whole."
2 The Senate passed the six bills on the same day. All six bills were enrolled on the same day.
It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your first question, that Const 1963, art 9, § 19 allows the State to invest funds held as permanent funds or endowment funds – including, but not limited to, the three funds listed in the Ballot Proposal 02-2 – in the stock of a company as provided by law.
Your second question is whether a legislative act giving a fund the title "permanent fund" is sufficient to qualify the fund for the stock ownership exemption. Const 1963, art 9, § 19, does not define "permanent fund."
In Michigan, all political power is inherent in the people. Const 1963, art 1, § 1. The legislative power of the State of Michigan is vested in a senate and a house of representatives. Const 1963, art 4, §
1. The Legislature, as the people's public servant, exercises broad and comprehensive power that is subject only to the Constitution of the United States and the restraints and limitations imposed by the people through Michigan's Constitution. Young v Ann Arbor, 267 Mich 241, 243; 255 NW 579 (1934). The Legislature can do anything that it is not prohibited from doing by the Michigan or United States Constitutions. Attorney General ex rel O'Hara v Montgomery, 275 Mich 504, 538; 267 NW 550 (1936). The function of the Michigan Constitution is not to legislate in detail but to generally set limits upon the otherwise plenary powers of the Legislature. Romano v Auditor General, 323 Mich 533, 536-537; 35 NW2d 701 (1949).
The Legislature may provide by law for the investment of funds held as a permanent fund or endowment fund and may ascribe a meaning to those terms in doing so. But it may not alter or finally determine the substantive meaning of the constitutional language. See Sharp v City of Lansing, 464
1 Straus v Governor, 459 Mich 526, 542; 592 NW2d 53 (1999).
Mich 792, 802; 629 NW2d 873 (2001). It is the judiciary, not the Legislature, that is the ultimate interpreter of the words in the constitution. Citing that principle, in WPW Acquisition Co v City of Troy, 466 Mich 117, 123-125; 643 NW2d 564 (2002), the Court held that a legislative definition of a constitutional term is unconstitutional if it is "inconsistent with the established meaning of that term at the time it was added to [the] constitutional provision." House Speaker v Governor, 443 Mich 560, 592; 506 NW2d 190 (1993), quoted Pillon v Attorney General, 345 Mich 536, 547; 77 NW2d 257 (1956), for the proposition that: "'Neither the legislature, nor this Court, has any right to amend or change a provision in the Constitution.'"
The judiciary has not had the opportunity to interpret what "permanent fund" means. Likewise, the Legislature has not provided a definition of the constitutional term "permanent fund" since the time that term was added to art 9, § 19 in 2002. It would, therefore, be premature to express a legal opinion concerning the features necessary to qualify a fund as a permanent fund.
Two sources do, however, provide some guidance in ascertaining the meaning of this term as it appears in art 9, § 19. First, Proposal 02-2 identified at least three funds – the Natural Resources Trust Fund, the State Parks Endowment Fund, and the Veterans' Trust Fund – as falling within the scope of the new provision allowing their investment in stock as provided by law. In addition, at the time the voters were considering Proposal 02-2, the State of Michigan Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, prepared by the Department of Management and Budget under generally accepted government accounting standards, had been printed and reported that the State of Michigan had five "permanent funds" in 2000-2001: the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund; the Michigan State Parks Endowment Fund; the Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Endowment Fund; the Michigan Veterans' Trust Fund; and the Children's Trust Fund.
A review of these established funds reveals certain common attributes that may serve to characterize a fund as "permanent." These include prescribing the fund's purposes, authorizing the investment and reinvestment of the fund's money only to fulfill those purposes, restricting the amount of money that may be allocated to or accumulate in the fund, preserving the fund's mission by providing that the money in the fund does not lapse back to the State's General Fund at the end of each fiscal year, and mandating a regular accounting of the fund's revenues and expenditures for the Legislature. These substantive characteristics are consistent with how the term "permanent fund" is used in Const 1963, art 9, § 19.
It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your second question, that an act of the Legislature giving a fund the title "permanent fund" is not, by itself, sufficient to qualify the fund for the stock ownership exemption under Const 1963, art 9, § 19. A fund so designated must also possess the substantive characteristics of a "permanent fund" as that term is used in the Constitution.
The third question you ask is whether sections 88e, 88f, 88g, and 88h of 2005 PA 225, which require the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate investment programs and create a new permanent fund, the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund, violate the prohibition against State stock ownership in Const 1963, art 9, § 19.
The Michigan Strategic Fund Act, 1984 PA 270, MCL 125.2001 et seq, creates the Michigan Strategic Fund as a public body corporate and politic. The Michigan Strategic Fund exists to assist business enterprise in obtaining additional sources of financing to aid this State in achieving the goal of long-term economic growth and full employment, to preserve existing jobs, to create new jobs, and to
reduce the cost of business and production. MCL 125.2002. The Michigan Strategic Fund exists within the Michigan Department of Treasury, but it functions independently of the State Treasurer as an autonomous entity. MCL 125.2005(1). The Legislature has conferred broad authority on the Michigan Strategic Fund to carry out its purposes and objectives. Tiger Stadium Fan Club Inc v Governor, 217 Mich App 439, 457; 553 NW2d 7 (1996). The purposes, powers, and duties of the Michigan Strategic Fund are vested in and exercised by its Board of Directors. MCL 125.2005(2).
2005 PA 225 amended the Michigan Strategic Fund Act to add a new Chapter 8A to the Act, which includes the sections about which you inquire. Section 88b requires the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate programs authorized under the new chapter. MCL 125.2088b. Section 88e requires the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate a private equity investment program. MCL 125.2088e. Section 88f requires the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate the venture capital investment program. MCL 125.2088f. Section 88g requires the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate a mezzanine investment program. MCL 125.2088g. The Legislature has authorized the Michigan Strategic Fund Board to undertake equity investments in discharging these three programs.
MCL 125.2088h(7). The Michigan Strategic Fund Board shall exercise the duties of a fiduciary with respect to these investments. See MCL 125.2088c(1).
Section 88h(1) of 2005 PA 225, MCL 125.2088h(1), creates the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund as a "permanent fund" authorized by Const 1963, art 9, § 19:
The jobs for Michigan investment fund is created within the fund as a permanent fund authorized by section 19 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963. Money in the investment fund at the close of the fiscal year shall remain in the investment fund and shall not lapse to the general fund.
To carry out the purposes of Chapter 8A of the Michigan Strategic Fund Act, the Legislature appropriated and transferred $400 million for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, from the 21st Century Jobs Trust Fund to the Michigan Strategic Fund. Section 88j(2) of 2005 PA 225, MCL 125.2088j(2).
The Legislature established the 21st Century Jobs Trust Fund to receive the net proceeds of the sale of tobacco settlement revenues to the Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority. MCL 12.257(1). "Tobacco settlement revenues" are monies received by this State that are attributable to the Master Settlement Agreement incorporated into a consent decree and final judgment entered into on December 7, 1998, in Attorney General ex rel Michigan v Philip Morris Inc, Ingham County Circuit Court, Docket No. 96-84281 CZ. MCL 12.252(f). The Legislature authorized the State Budget Director, with the approval of the State Administrative Board, to sell tobacco settlement revenues to either the Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority or to other persons if the sale agreement is in the best interest of the State and the net proceeds of the sale do not exceed $400,000,000.00. MCL 129.268(1). Upon the request from the Michigan Strategic Fund Board, the State Treasurer must transfer appropriated funds from the 21st Century Jobs Trust Fund to the Michigan Strategic Fund as necessary for it to disburse money for programs authorized under Chapter 8A of the Michigan Strategic Fund Act. MCL 125.2088j(1).
Money appropriated from the 21st Century Jobs Trust Fund to the Michigan Strategic Fund may be deposited in the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund. MCL 125.2088h(5)(a). The money deposited in the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund and its net income may be expended by the Michigan Strategic Fund only for purposes authorized under Chapter 8A of the Michigan Strategic Fund Act, including the private equity investment program, the venture capital investment program, and the
mezzanine investment program. MCL 125.2088h(3) and (6). Except for the appropriations described in section 88j(3), the Michigan Strategic Fund Board cannot expend more than 40% of the amounts appropriated from the 21st Century Jobs Trust Fund for the private equity investment program, the venture capital investment program, and the mezzanine investment program combined. MCL 125.2088b(3)(b). Money in the investment fund at the close of the fiscal year remains in the investment fund and does not lapse to the general fund. MCL 125.2088h(1). In addition to the preexisting requirement that the Michigan Strategic Fund must be annually audited,1 the Auditor General must conduct and report an annual "financial postaudit" and, every three years, conduct and report a "performance postaudit" of the investment fund. MCL 125.2088n.
Nothing in the Michigan Strategic Fund Act limits the permanency of the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund. In fact, by their very nature, the fund's investments in early-stage companies will take time to mature, earn financial returns, and secure its mission of a diversified economy, job creation, and increased capital investment for Michigan.
Const 1963, art 9, § 19 allows funds held as permanent funds to be invested in the stock of any company as provided by law. The Legislature created the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund in 2005 PA 225 as a permanent fund authorized by Const 1963, art 9, § 19 and vested it with the characteristics common to a "permanent fund" consistent with the meaning of that term under the Constitution. Like all laws enacted by the Legislature, 2005 PA 225 is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. The courts give deference to a deliberate act of the Legislature and have emphasized that every reasonable "intendment must be indulged in favor of the validity of the act." Council of Organizations & Others for Education About Parochiaid v Governor, 455 Mich 557, 570; 566 NW2d 208 (1997), quoting Cady
1 MCL 125.2009.
v Detroit, 289 Mich 499, 505; 286 NW 805 (1939).1 Only when invalidity appears so clearly as to leave no room for reasonable doubt that it violates some provision of the Constitution will a court refuse to sustain its validity. Id. The Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund may, thus, invest in stock as part of the private equity investment program, the venture capital investment program, and the mezzanine investment program.2
It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your third question, that sections 88e, 88f, 88g, and 88h of 2005 PA 225, MCL 125.2088e – 125.2088(h), which require the Michigan Strategic Fund to create and operate various investment programs and create the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund as a permanent fund, are constitutional under Const 1963, art 9, § 19.
MIKE COX
Attorney General
1 As explained in Gora v City of Ferndale, 456 Mich 704, 720; 576 NW2d 141 (1998):
One of the reasons underlying this presumption is that persons holding legislative office . . . are duty-bound to act in conformity with their oaths to support the Michigan and federal constitutions, just as are members of the judiciary. Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 179-180, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). As Justice Holmes put it, "it must be remembered that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts." Missouri, Kansas & Texas R Co v May, 194 U.S. 267, 270; 24 S. Ct. 638; 48 L. Ed. 971 (1904).
2 The private equity investment program, the venture capital investment program, and the mezzanine investment program are
programs and do not exist as independent permanent funds. Therefore, when the Michigan Strategic Fund Board invests funds from the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund in these three programs, the Michigan Strategic Fund must own the investments.
