O’connell v. Director of Elections
317 Mich. App. 82
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Judge Peter D. O’Connell (elected to a six-year Court of Appeals term in 2012 expiring Jan. 1, 2019) filed an affidavit of candidacy in Feb. 2016 to run as an incumbent for a Court of Appeals seat whose term begins Jan. 1, 2017.
- Governor Snyder appointed Michael Gadola in Jan. 2015 to fill a vacancy; Gadola’s appointed seat’s unexpired term runs to Jan. 1, 2017, and he filed as the incumbent for the 2017–2023 term.
- The Director of Elections rejected O’Connell’s affidavit because O’Connell was not the incumbent for the 2017–2023 seat; O’Connell then sought mandamus in the Court of Claims.
- The Court of Claims (Stephens, J.) denied mandamus, holding that the constitutional phrases "the office" and "the same office" tie incumbency to a specific judicial seat and term, so O’Connell is not the incumbent of Gadola’s seat.
- O’Connell appealed, arguing incumbency is a general status of sitting judges (allowing multiple incumbents) and that the Court of Claims’ construction leads to absurd consequences; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sitting Court of Appeals judge may run as an incumbent for any Court of Appeals seat in the district (i.e., incumbency is a general status) | O’Connell: "incumbent" is a status of being a sitting judge; multiple judges in a district can be "incumbents" and thus may use affidavit rather than petitions | Director/Opposition: "the office" and "the same office" in the Constitution tie incumbency to a particular seat/term; only the judge who holds that seat/term is "the incumbent" | Court: Incumbency is tied to a specific office/term; O’Connell is not the incumbent for Gadola’s seat and cannot use an affidavit |
| Whether a judge not holding the specific seat/term is entitled to the ballot designation "Judge of the Court of Appeals" as an incumbent | O’Connell: entitlement flows from being a sitting Court of Appeals judge; designation should be available | Director/Opposition: §24 links the incumbency designation to "the same office," i.e., the specific seat/term | Court: Ballot designation as an incumbent applies only to the judge running for reelection to his/her own specific term; O’Connell is not entitled to that designation |
Key Cases Cited
- UAW v. Green, 498 Mich 282 (Mich. 2015) (constitutional interpretation uses the common understanding of terms at ratification)
- Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (Mich. 2010) (the definite article "the" has a specifying effect in statutory/constitutional text)
- Rental Props. Owners Ass’n of Kent Co. v. Kent Co. Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (mandamus standards and requirements)
- Univ. Med. Affiliates, P.C. v. Wayne County Executive, 142 Mich App 135 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
- Adair v. Michigan, 497 Mich 89 (Mich. 2014) (constitutional interpretation oriented to the will of the ratifying people)