O’connell v. Director of Elections
316 Mich. App. 91
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Peter O’Connell is an incumbent Michigan Court of Appeals judge reelected to a term ending Jan. 1, 2019, but will be over 70 before the 2018 general election and thus ineligible to seek that seat again. He sought to run in the 2017–2023 Court of Appeals seat currently held by Judge Michael Gadola.
- O’Connell filed affidavits of candidacy and identity asserting incumbent status; the Secretary of State (Director of Elections/Bureau of Elections) rejected them.
- O’Connell sued in the Court of Claims seeking a writ of mandamus compelling qualification. Defendants contested jurisdiction.
- The Court of Claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning Const 1963, art 6, § 13 gives circuit courts exclusive power to issue prerogative and remedial writs, and that the Legislature could not delegate that to the Court of Claims.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed: it held the Court of Claims’ statutory grant of exclusive jurisdiction in MCL 600.6419(1)(a) includes demands for extraordinary writs against the state and thus harmonizes with other statutes (notably MCL 600.4401(1)) and constitutional provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a mandamus action against state officers/department in place of circuit court or Court of Appeals | MCL 600.6419(1)(a) (as amended) grants the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over any demand for extraordinary writs against the state or its officers, so the Court of Claims may hear O’Connell’s mandamus claim | MCL 600.6419(6) preserves the circuit court’s exclusive jurisdiction over prerogative/remedial writs under Const art 6 §13, so mandamus must be brought in circuit court or Court of Appeals under MCL 600.4401(1) | Reversed Court of Claims. MCL 600.6419(1)(a) validly assigns jurisdiction over mandamus against state officers to the Court of Claims; §6419(6) does not nullify that delegation |
| Whether MCL 600.6419(6) should be read to reassert circuit-court exclusivity over prerogative writs | §6419(6) simply preserves any circuit-court exclusivity that already existed; it does not negate §6419(1)(a)’s express grant to the Court of Claims | §6419(6) must be read to retain circuit-court exclusivity, preventing statutory removal of prerogative-writ jurisdiction | Court: §6419(6) cannot be read to create exclusive circuit-court jurisdiction where none constitutionally existed; the Legislature permissibly delegated jurisdiction over writs against state actors to the Court of Claims |
| Whether the Court of Claims’ §6419(1)(a) conflicts with MCL 600.4401(1) (mandamus venue statute) | §6419(1)(a)’s "notwithstanding" language supersedes prior statutes and shifts jurisdiction to the Court of Claims for writs against state officers | MCL 600.4401(1) requires mandamus against state officers to be commenced in Court of Appeals or in circuit court, so §6419 cannot displace that scheme | Court: Read in pari materia, §6419(1)(a) was intended to and does supersede conflicting portions of §4401(1) as to writs against state defendants |
| Whether appellate court should decide the substantive mandamus claim on appeal | O’Connell asked the appellate court to decide entitlement to mandamus | Defendants opposed deciding the merits given lack of trial-court ruling | Court declined to reach the merits because the issue was unpreserved; remanded to Court of Claims for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- AFSCME Council 25 v. State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 294 Mich. App. 1 (interpretation of Court of Claims jurisdiction and de novo review of jurisdictional statutes)
- Parkwood Ltd. Dividend Hous. Ass’n v. State Hous. Dev. Auth., 468 Mich. 763 (construction of §6419 and Court of Claims’ jurisdiction over contract/declaratory claims against state)
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich. 1 (statutory preemption/supersession principles; later and specific statute controls)
- LeRoux v. Secretary of State, 465 Mich. 594 (mandamus characterized as an extraordinary/prerogative writ)