Michigan
Governor Rick Snyder wants a new international bridge between Detroit and Windsor,
despite failure of the Michigan legislature to pass a bill funding the project.
Grosse Pointe billionaire Manuel Moroun wants any new span across the Detroit
River to be part of his current monopoly on bridge traffic and toll
collections, and has spent $1.6 million just this year lobbying against
Governor Snyder’s plans for the New International Trade Crossing. Governor
Snyder has enlisted the Canadian national government as an ally in contracting
for construction of his planned new bridge, while Moroun mounts a petition
drive to add to November’s ballot an amendment to the Michigan Constitution
prohibiting Governor Snyder’s project without voter approval in a referendum. Both
sides have carefully worded their initiatives with an eye on a future court
battle involving Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
Moroun’s
ballot initiative would require referendum approval of any international bridge
“which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012.”
The intergovernmental agreement signed last Friday between Michigan and Canada
for construction of the New International Trade Crossing says, on the other
hand, “Any reference to any Michigan Law … shall be deemed to be reference to
such Law … in effect as of the date the Michigan Party became a Party…” Since
the international agreement is now signed, that language is intended to
foreclose a November ballot initiative seeking to render the agreement
unenforceable.
Now
to the United States Constitution. Article 1 Section 10 of that document
provides that “No state shall … pass … any law impairing the obligation of
contracts.” Whoa, why is that even in there? Well after the revolutionary war,
during the time the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation
before ratification of the current Constitution, several states were in the
habit of adopting legislation freeing powerful citizens of their debt
obligations to people and governments who were on the “wrong” side of that war.
Recognizing that such behavior would inhibit the new nation's full participation
in international trade, the founding fathers inserted the “contract clause”
into Article 1 Section 10 of their new Constitution, and there it remains to
this day.
Mr.
Moroun and his private bridge monopoly are quite likely to lose this battle,
even if his ballot initiative should pass. The government of Canada now has a
contract with State of Michigan, executed under Governor Snyder’s existing
authority to make agreements for international cooperation, for construction
and operation of the bridge. Article 1 Section 10 of the U. S. Constitution now
prohibits Michigan from enacting any law – including an amendment to the
Michigan Constitution – impairing the obligation of that contract.
In
an effort to counter the U. S. Constitutional argument, Moroun has already
hired Wayne State University law professor Robert Sedler as a consultant to
plant a law review article arguing his side of the issue. Gubernatorial spokesperson
Sara Wurfel has already announced the State of Michigan position that an
amendment to the Michigan Constitution passed in November could not undo a
contract signed in June.
While
an ordinary court dispute of this nature could take years to wind its way to
the U. S. Supreme Court, this one involves the government of Canada, and could
have the U. S. Supreme Court as its very first stop, should the State of
Michigan or the Canadians elect to send it directly there in the event Moroun’s
ballot initiative succeeds. The U. S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
over cases “between a State, … and
foreign States…”
There
are even more defenses against Moroun and his allies in the Michigan/Canada agreement.
Canada is paying for the customs plaza on the Canadian side of the river, and
the U. S. federal government is paying for construction of the customs plaza on
the American side. Canada is fronting the full cost of construction of the
bridge, and collecting the Michigan share of that cost from Michigan’s share of
auto and truck tolls, all of which will be collected on the Canadian side of
the bridge. If Moroun loses his ballot initiative, or loses in the U. S.
Supreme Court, there aren’t any other points of attack for him and his allies,
and the U. S. Constitution doesn’t bode very well for the Moroun monopoly. In
fact, the more design and construction contracts for the project which get
signed before initiation of any court battle, the worse it looks for the
billionaire.
Meanwhile,
going forward with the bridge construction project will put a lot of Canadian
and American skilled tradespeople back to work. The Ann Arbor Center for
Automotive Research released a study concurrently with the signing of the
international agreement which projects that the $2 billion project could put
6,000 American tradespeople to work in each of the first two years, and 5,100
in the third and fourth years. Another 6,600 jobs would be leveraged in the
United States each of the four years due to freeing up of $2.2 billion in
federal road funds for other Michigan located projects since the Canadians are
fronting Michigan’s $550 million share of bridge construction costs.an
additional 1,400 permanent American jobs would be created for operation of the
bridge. Finally, the study projects, 6,800 permanent American private sector
jobs will be created by new economic activity in the area of the new bridge and
as a result of enhancement of the $70 billion annual cross-border trade flowing
between Detroit and Windsor. At the very top of this employment totem pole
should be about 125 Wayne County ironworkers earning $58/per hour. Canada
expects its side of the river to supply rebar and steel plate for the bridge
construction, while American steel mills will provide structural members.
Though
Moroun and his political allies will undoubtedly continue their fierce
opposition to the project in court and at the ballot box, Michigan House
Speaker Jase Bolger seems to be throwing in the towel. “It appears Governor
Snyder’s plan does not involve any action by the Legislature, so it seems he
has found a way to accomplish his goal of a new bridge while addressing our
chief concern of protecting taxpayers,” the Marshall, Michigan Republican said
in a prepared statement.
