These kinds of laws, known as “bracket bills” in Texas, are necessary because many state constitutions, including both Michigan’s (art. IV, sec. 29) and Texas’s (art. III, sec. 56), forbid the Legislature from enacting “local or special acts”, or laws that apply only to one city or one person. By referring only to a locality’s population, the legislature can pass a bill that skirts the constitutional prohibition while addressing the specific needs of that community. Usually, so long as it is theoretically possible for any city to grow into or out of the bracket, the bracket is valid.

One view of bracket bills is that they allow the legislature to address a public policy issue unique to one locality without having to take a “one-size-fits-all” solution that may prove unworkable for other localities. Another view is that they impermissibly allow a legislator or group of legislators to micromanage a locality’s affairs; legislative courtesy often demands that members not delay or defeat another member’s local legislation.

Finally, from a drafting perspective, the situation facing Detroit could have been avoided if the initial legislation provided that “this Act continues to apply to a municipality described by this Act and continues to operate regardless of any change in the municipality’s population” or similar language reflecting local drafting conventions. As the Metro News noted, the next largest city in Michigan is Grand Rapids with a population of about 188,000, there’s still no danger of any other city catching up to Detroit soon if such language is added.