A proposal to implement an independent redistricting commission in Michigan will be on the November ballot, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

In a 4-3 ruling released around 10:30 p.m. Tuesday, Supreme Court justices David Viviano, Bridget Mary McCormack, Richard Bernstein and Beth Clement determined the ballot initiative put forward by the group Voters Not Politicians passed state constitutional muster.

The majority opinion concluded that the plan put forward by Voters Not Politicians was not a general revision of the Constitution, and did not negatively impact powers assigned by the three branches of government.

The court's majority decision concurred with a unanimous decision from the state Court of Appeals, which compelled the Michigan Board of State Canvassers to place the Voters not Politicians measure on the ballot after determining the initiative passed constitutional muster.

"Our holding here reflects the constitutional text, our historical experience, logic, and the wisdom of other states," the opinion reads. "We conclude that VNP's proposal does not create the equivalent of a new constitution by significantly altering or abolishing the form or structure of our government and is, instead, a permissible voter-initiated amendment."

Dissenting opinions was authored by Chief Justice Stephen Markman and Kurtis Wilder, both of which were joined by Justice Brian Zahra.

The plan, put forward by Voters Not Politicians, would amend the Michigan Constitution to create a 13-member independent redistricting commission in time for the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.

The commission would be made up of five independents, four Democrats and four Republicans. The proposal placed several restrictions on who can be selected in an attempt to fully separate redistricting from the political process, which is currently controlled by the state Legislature.

In a statement following the decision, Voters Not Politicians founder and executive director Katie Fahey said supporters are "ecstatic" the proposal will be on the November ballot.

"Hundreds of thousands of voters signed their name to have the chance to vote to bring the redistricting process out in the open," she said. "Michigan voters are ready for a transparent redistricting process, where election district lines represent the people - not special interests."

In his dissenting opinion, Markman disagreed with the court's finding, concluding the matter was a general revision of the Constitution and not an amendment and also taking issue with the argument that the "people" must decide regardless of the proposal's merits.

"The 'people' have been referenced frequently during oral argument and by the majority opinion, as if merely to invoke their name compels the conclusion that the present measure must be placed on the ballot," Markman's dissent reads. "After assessing the interests of the 'people' in this matter, I believe that what is most significant is that these 'people' have made it reasonably clear that the permanent things of their Constitution are not to be cast away lightly."

If passed, the Voters Not Politicians plan would insert in place of the current system "the governance of 13 randomly selected 'people' entirely lacking in any democratic or electoral relationship with the other 10 million 'people' of this state or their elected representatives," Markman wrote in the dissent.

Over a span of several months, Voters Not Politicians built up a formidable volunteer staff, putting thousands of people passionate about redistricting reform to work collecting signatures, educating prospective voters and organizing new recruits.

The group turned in 427,075 signatures, of which state elections staff determined 394,092 were valid. The initiative needed 315,654 signatures to be considered for final ballot approval.

Voters Not Politicians has faced stiff opposition almost from the start from groups like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Republican Party, who have tried to frame the matter as an effort by progressives to wrest political control from Republicans.

When the court heard arguments on the matter July 18, Michigan's solicitor general and the group Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution argued the Voters Not Politicians plan is a "sweeping, radical change" of the Constitution that departs from decades of existing precedent on how political district lines are drawn.

Attorney Peter Ellsworth also argued the proposal would create a "super agency" with no checks and balances of power from voters or branches of government that would perform a key government function.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion found that was not the case - the justices concluded that although the legislature has been in control of redistricting since 1996, "the current state of affairs is a deviation from what the voters chose when they ratified the 1963 Constitution."

"The Legislature has no such role in the 1963 Constitution's commission," the majority opinion reads. "If anything, then VNP's proposal increases, slightly, the Legislature's participation in the process over the level contemplated in 1963."

Supporters of redistricting reform have argued the status quo of politicians picking their own districts is fundamentally flawed. Voters Not Politicians organizers have long said their efforts are nonpartisan and point to Republicans and Democrats alike who have signed onto their proposal.

During Supreme Court arguments, Voters Not Politicians attorney Graham Crabtree argued the Constitution "does not allow a fine parsing of whether this or that is germane."

"The duty of this court is to allow it to go on the ballot so the people can have their say," he said.

Even before the Supreme Court ruled, Voters Not Politicians was already looking ahead to next steps. The group raised more than $700,000 from April to July, and released its first statewide television ad last week.