Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court made a 4-3 decision that the law changing the way Oakland County redistricts its county commission seats is legal, while acknowledging there were political motivations behind its passage.

In dispute was Public Act 280 of 2011, which changed Oakland’s reapportionment control from the Democratically-controlled executive branch to the Republican-controlled County Commission and removed four seats from the commission. Republicans, unhappy with the lines the Democrats drew, claimed it was a cost-saving measure, but emails that were released proved otherwise.

One such email, from Representative Eileen Kowall, R-White Lake, read, “I guess it would also help to have (a) legitimate explanation as to why we waited until now, after redistricting plans have been submitted, to take these bills up. I'm thinking that we claim we were having trouble agreeing on how many seats the BOC would ultimately have.”

Democrats claimed because the law only affected Oakland County, it was a local act, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass the House, which Republicans did not have. Republicans contend it is not a local act, and the court agreed.

The court used the precedent from Dearborn v. Board of Supervisors, which lays out what defines a local act: “the limiting criteria … must be reasonably related to the overall purpose of the statute” and it has to leave open the possibility for other locations to eventually fall under the provisions of the law, regardless of the likeliness of that ever happening.

The law never specified Oakland County, but rather any county with a population more than 1 million and a certain type of county government. Because the law will apply not only to this year’s redistricting, but also redistricting in the future, other counties could fall under the provision.

The Democrats on the court used the precedent of State v. Wayne County Clerk, which found that the legislature could not direct cities of at least 750,000 (i.e. Detroit) to place a ballot proposal on the ballot in the primary election.

Using that precedent was incorrect, because no other city could have been determined to have a population of at least 750,000 before the primary. That law set a specific date for the ballot proposal, and it would only happen one time. The redistricting law, on the other hand, could potentially affect other counties in future years.

The majority correctly stated “the validity of legislation can never be made to depend on the motives which have secured its adoption, whether these be public or personal, honest or corrupt.”

What the Republican legislature did was slimy and disgraceful, but the justices’ job is to rule on the law as it is written.

This will be a hot issue in this year’s election, but anger should not be directed at the Republicans on the court — they made a ruling that adhered to the rule of law. Those unhappy with the results should change what defines a local act, so that conflicts like this do not happen.