Senate v. Secretary of State, 957 N.W.2d 731

Background

In 2018 the Michigan Legislature enacted PA 608, imposing (1) a 15% per‑congressional‑district cap on countable petition signatures, (2) a checkbox identifying paid vs. volunteer circulators, and (3) a preregistration affidavit requirement for paid circulators.
The Michigan Attorney General issued a formal opinion concluding those provisions were unconstitutional; the Secretary of State (via AG counsel) declined to defend the provisions in litigation.
LWV, MFTE, and individual voters sued the Secretary of State in the Court of Claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief attacking PA 608; the Legislature later filed its own suit seeking a declaration the law is constitutional. The cases were consolidated.
The Court of Claims struck the geographic‑distribution and checkbox provisions but upheld the affidavit requirement; the Court of Appeals reversed the affidavit ruling and affirmed the other holdings. No original LWV parties appealed further; the Legislature sought to intervene/appeal.
The Supreme Court granted the Legislature’s motion to intervene, then found MFTE had suspended its petition drive (raising mootness), concluded the LWV action was moot as to MFTE and that remaining LWV plaintiffs lacked standing, vacated lower‑court decisions in that case, and affirmed on alternative grounds that the Legislature lacked standing in its own action; both matters remanded for dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Legislature may intervene and have appellate standing when the AG declines to defend a statute	Legislature: it has an institutional interest to defend enacted laws and can fill the defense void when AG abandons defense	Secretary/AG: Legislature lacks standing; intervention untimely or improper	Court: Legislature may intervene and has standing to appeal when AG declines to defend a statute (permissive intervention and aggrievement satisfied)
Whether MFTE’s suspension of its petition drive rendered LWV case moot	LWV/MFTE: case remains live or likely to recur; merits resolution needed	Secretary/State parties: MFTE’s abandonment moots claims	Court: Moot as to MFTE (voluntary abandonment of petition drive renders case nonjusticiable)
Whether remaining LWV plaintiffs (LWV and individual voters) had standing to seek declaratory relief	Plaintiffs: relaxed standing for election cases; their interest in petitioning suffices	Secretary: no present controversy; plaintiffs have only speculative future plans	Court: Plaintiffs lack standing under MCR 2.605—no present legal controversy requiring declaratory relief
Whether to vacate lower‑court judgments given mootness and procedural posture	Plaintiffs/Legislature: (some urged merits)	Court/AG: equitable circumstances support vacatur because decisions became effectively unreviewable and procedurally messy	Court: Vacated Court of Appeals and Court of Claims decisions in LWV case and remanded for dismissal; affirmed Court of Appeals re Legislature’s lack of standing on alternative grounds

Key Cases Cited

Federated Ins. Co. v. Oakland Co. Rd. Comm’n, 475 Mich 286 (Mich. 2006) (intervention and appellate standing require an aggrieved party; a case ceases to be justiciable when losing parties fail to appeal)
Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass’n v. Lansing Bd. of Ed., 487 Mich 349 (Mich. 2010) (standing for declaratory relief governed by MCR 2.605; standing prudentially ensures sincere, vigorous advocacy)
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1988) (election‑law challenges may be "capable of repetition, yet evading review" due to short signature‑gathering windows)
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (U.S. 2013) (recognizing that a legislative body may defend a statute when the Executive declines to do so)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (federal standing requirements: injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1939) (legislators had standing where their votes were effectively nullified)