Hanlin v. Saugatuck Township
299 Mich. App. 233
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs appeal a trial court order granting summary disposition for Saugatuck Township, the township board, and the Allegan County Board of Canvassers, and denying plaintiffs’ summary disposition request.
- The action concerns a May 4, 2010 special election millage in Saugatuck Township that passed by a margin of two votes, with certification on May 6, 2010 and a recount petition on May 11, 2010.
- Plaintiffs allege election irregularities centered on the township clerk’s handling of the ballot container seals, including cutting a security seal after the election and transferring ballots to unapproved bags.
- Additional concerns include mismatched seals recorded in the poll book, missing original seals, and the board’s decision not to recount due to seal discrepancies.
- Plaintiffs sought to void the election via quo warranto, and also claimed mandamus against the Board of Canvassers for ministerial duties related to the poll book and seal recording.
- The court held that MCL 168.861 is a saving clause preserving quo warranto in certain tampering-before-recount scenarios, and that the election results could not be voided under the cited provisions given the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is MCL 168.861 a saving clause or independent basis for quo warranto? | 168.861 provides quo warranto relief for tampering before recount. | 168.861 is a saving clause, not an independent claim. | 168.861 is a saving clause preserving quo warranto; not standalone. |
| Whether MCL 600.4545(1) supports quo warranto based on material fraud or error affecting outcome | Fraud or error occurred that could affect the election outcome. | No proved fraud/error likely to affect outcome; no quo warranto requires. | No sufficient proof that fraud/error would have changed the outcome; uphold summary disposition. |
| Did the township clerk acting as election inspector justify quo warranto relief under 600.4545(1)? | Clerk’s improper role as inspector constitutes error affecting results. | Lack of evidence that clerk’s role changed outcome; not sufficient. | No reversible error established; 4545(1) relief not shown. |
| Was the board of canvassers' mandamus remedy appropriate given the availability of quo warranto | Mandamus should compel proper ministerial duties by canvassers. | There was an available quo warranto remedy; mandamus not necessary. | Mandamus properly denied due to availability of quo warranto relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrow v. Detroit Mayor, 290 Mich App 530 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to proceed by quo warranto)
- Moser v. Detroit, 284 Mich App 536 (2009) (summary disposition standards; de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Ward v Mich State Univ (On Remand), 287 Mich App 76 (2010) (statutory interpretation framework)
- Hughes v Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 277 Mich App 268 (2007) (summary disposition standards and procedure)
- Ryan v Wayne Co Bd of Canvassers, 396 Mich 213 (1976) (legislative balance between recount procedures and preserving original count)
- St Joseph Twp v City of St Joseph, 373 Mich 1 (1964) (fraud or error must affect outcome to warrant relief)
- West Shore Community College v Manistee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 389 Mich 287 (1973) (misleading ballots and remedy considerations)
- Danse Corp v Madison Hts, 466 Mich 175 (2002) (agency manuals not binding regulatory rules unless properly promulgated)