Stand up for Democracy v. Secretary of State
824 N.W.2d 220
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Stand Up For Democracy seeks a writ of mandamus against the Michigan Secretary of State and the Board of State Canvassers to certify 2011 PA 4 for the November 2012 ballot.
- This Court historically followed Bloomfield Charter Twp v Oakland Co Clerk to grant certification, but now disavows Bloomfield and follows it only because compelled by MCR 7.215(J)(1).
- 2011 PA 4 created an emergency manager regime for local governments and superseded 1990 PA 72, with broader powers for emergency managers; PA 4 became effective March 16, 2011.
- Petition formatting required by statute and Secretary of State memoranda mandates a 14-point boldfaced heading in capital letters; controversy centers on whether the heading truly met 14-point size.
- Secretary of State and Board faced a deadlock on certification; CFR challenged the petition on multiple grounds including heading size, summary, publication, and tie-bar issues.
- The Court ultimately certifies the petition under Bloomfield’s framework, but expressly rejects Bloomfield as correctly decided, signaling a need for a special-panel review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the petition heading mandatory 14-point type? | Heading must be 14-point boldfaced type per statute. | Font technology varies; exact 14-point measurement is not feasible; substantial compliance may suffice. | Heading size deemed fatal under statute; however, Bloomfield would permit certification. |
| Should certification be allowed under a substantial-compliance standard? | Petition substantially complies; certification warranted. | Mandatory 14-point standard cannot be bypassed by substantial compliance. | Bloomfield would certify; but Bloomfield is later deemed wrongly decided; court acknowledges substantial-compliance approach but resolves under Bloomfield due to rule. |
| Are CFR’s challenges to petition form ripe for review and within board jurisdiction? | Threshold determinations about form are ripe for review and separable from merits. | Board cannot review substantive merits; limited to form and technical compliance. | Challenges to form are ripe; petition form issues can determine certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloomfield Charter Township v Oakland County Clerk, 253 Mich App 1 (2002) (holding on certification under substantial-compliance doctrine overturned)
- Meridian Charter Twp v East Lansing, 101 Mich App 805 (1980) (substantial-compliance doctrine foundational)
- Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v Secretary of State, 280 Mich App 273 (2008) (threshold validity of petition challenged before board)
- Reynolds v Bureau of State Lottery, 240 Mich App 84 (2000) (referendum scope limited to specific act; interpretation of 'the law')
- Tea Party v Board of State Canvassers, unpublished order (2010) (unpublished; not binding precedent)