Berry v. Garrett
890 N.W.2d 882
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Carl Berry, a Plymouth Township voter, sued seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent the Wayne County election officials from placing two candidates (Schnettler and Heise) on the August 2, 2016 primary ballot.
- Schnettler and Heise filed affidavits of identity that omitted their precinct numbers as required by MCL 168.558(2); neither timely corrected the defect.
- Plaintiff argued defendants had a clear statutory duty not to certify candidates who failed to comply with § 558(2) and sought to compel performance.
- Defendants (Plymouth township officials and Wayne County officials) argued they had no duty to investigate affidavit accuracy, that plaintiff lacked standing, and that mandamus was improper because quo warranto and other remedies were available.
- The trial court denied the requested writ, concluding plaintiff had not shown a clear legal right to performance; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, ordering Wayne County defendants to take steps (including correcting ballots) to remove the ineligible candidates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wayne County defendants had a clear legal duty under MCL 168.558(4) not to certify candidates whose affidavits omitted precinct numbers | § 558(4) bars certification of candidates who fail to comply with § 558(2); defendants must not certify Schnettler and Heise | Defendants claimed no duty to "investigate" affidavits and read § 558(4) narrowly | Held: § 558(4) imposes a clear duty on county defendants not to certify noncompliant affidavits; duty extends to the whole section, not just the paragraph |
| Whether the act to remove/ correct the ballots is ministerial | The duties (including § 168.567 to correct ballots) are ministerial and require only a facial review | Defendants suggested discretion or lack of authority to review | Held: The duty is ministerial; a facial review would reveal defects and require noncertification/correction |
| Whether plaintiff (an elector) has standing / clear legal right to seek mandamus to enforce public election duties | Elector has discretional authority to vindicate public election rights by mandamus; plaintiff has a public interest to enforce § 558 | Defendants argued plaintiff lacked a clear legal right and was not a proper relator | Held: As an elector plaintiff has a clear legal right to enforcement here; trial court abused discretion by failing to exercise its discretion to allow the action |
| Whether mandamus is barred because quo warranto or other remedies are adequate | Mandamus is appropriate given time constraints; quo warranto would require special leave and likely be inadequate to afford prompt relief | Defendants argued quo warranto was the adequate remedy | Held: Quo warranto was not an adequate remedy under the time pressures; mandamus available |
Key Cases Cited
- Rental Props Owners Ass'n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich. App. 498 (mandamus elements and standard)
- Beach v. Lima Twp., 489 Mich. 99 (statutory interpretation review)
- Hillsdale County Senior Services, Inc v Hillsdale County, 494 Mich. 46 (definition of ministerial act)
- Martin v Secretary of State, 482 Mich. 956 (candidate standing; Supreme Court reversal limited to candidate-standing issue)
- Hanlin v Saugatuck Twp., 299 Mich. App. 233 (quo warranto procedural requirements)
- People ex rel Ayres v Board of State Auditors, 42 Mich. 422 (discretionary nature of private relator intervention in public grievances)
- Michigan v Wayne County Clerk, 466 Mich. 640 (removal of candidate from ballot/remedial authority)