Barrow v. City of Detroit Election Commission
305 Mich. App. 649
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Consolidated appeals concern Detroit’s August 2013 primary and November 2013 general elections.
- Plaintiffs—citizens, mayoral and city clerk candidates, and a political committee—challenged Duggan’s write-in campaign, imperfect absentee ballots, and off-site absentee voting at satellite offices.
- Duggan had previously been deemed ineligible for placement on the ballot, but sought to have write-in votes counted under state write-in law.
- Circuit court denied TROs and dismissed claims; court later denied declaratory relief and mandamus in related matters.
- Court addressed mootness but concluded issues were of public significance and capable of recurring in future elections.
- Issues of statutory interpretation and charter-city governance were raised regarding write-in eligibility, ballot design/approval, and satellite voting, with the court affirming the circuit court on all merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Write-in candidacy requirements | Duggan should be barred; Barrow I applies to official ballots. | Write-ins rely on MCL 168.737a(l); residency found sufficient. | Duggan qualified as a write-in candidate; write-ins counted. |
| Absentee ballot design and approval | Ballot perforations, instructions, and clerk’s approval method violated statutes. | Ballots complied under electronic voting statutes; clerk’s actions ratified by open meeting. | No statutory violation; ballot design and approval actions valid. |
| Off-site, in-person absentee voting (satellite offices) | Absentee voting must occur only at the clerk’s office; satellite sites improper. | Statutes authorize satellite voting; clerk and election department acted within powers. | Satellite absentee voting authorized and properly conducted. |
| Sanctions on appellate conduct | Requests for sanctions legitimate due to frivolous filings. | Sanctions not properly pleaded; cross-appeal required for some issues. | Sanctions denied without prejudice; appellate timing and procedure followed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrow v City of Detroit Election Comm, 301 Mich App 404 (2013) (write-in vs. official candidacy; residency and eligibility distinctions)
- Anzaldua v Neogen Corp, 292 Mich App 626 (2011) (de novo review on summary disposition; evidence standard)
- Hackel v Macomb Co Comm, 298 Mich App 311 (2012) (statutory interpretation of city charter provisions; in pari materia)
- McDonald v Grand Traverse Co Election Comm, 255 Mich App 674 (2003) (Purity of elections; fairness of election laws)
- AFSCME Council 25 v Woodhaven-Brownstown Sch Dist, 293 Mich App 143 (2011) (injunction standards; public-interest considerations)
- Barrow I, 301 Mich App 404 (2013) (precluded official candidacy but allowed write-in analysis under different standard)
- Johnson v Recca, 492 Mich 169 (2012) (statutory interpretation; words in context; purposive reading)
- Vorva v Plymouth-C Canton Community Sch Dist, 230 Mich App 651 (1988) (electronic voting system precedence over older paper-ballot rules)