837 N.W.2d 449
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff filed nominating petitions May 1, 2013 for Detroit City Clerk; charter requires 500–1,000 signatures; initial tally showed 561 signatures with 58 invalidated, leaving 503 valid.
- May 7, 2013, Detroit Director of Elections advised there were sufficient signatures to appear on the ballot, but did not disclose the 58 invalidated signatures.
- May 22–23, 2013, circulation pages with November 7, 2013 date were challenged; Baxter advised the date defect rendered those signatures invalid and informed plaintiff her candidacy would not be certified, reducing valid signatures to 475.
- May 23, 2013, Election Commission did not certify plaintiff as a candidate.
- Plaintiff sought review with the Secretary of State; the Secretary denied reinstating 55 signatures as untimely; plaintiff then filed mandamus/superintending control suit in circuit court on June 5, 2013; circuit court held hearings, found additional signatures valid (ultimately up to 494–497), and ordered plaintiff on the ballot; defendants appealed.
- Court affirms circuit court’s order placing plaintiff on the ballot; defects in clerk’s proceedings found, but remedy proper under mandamus/superintending control under MCL 168.552(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper review pathway under MCL 168.552(6)–(7)? | Plaintiff contends clerk failed to declare findings and deprived Secretary review. | Defendants assert proper review via Secretary of State or circuit court was available. | Circuit court review warranted; deficiency in declaration did not bar mandamus relief. |
| Whether undated signatures invalidated under 168.544c? | Undated signatures should be counted if otherwise valid. | Undated signatures violate statutory form and must be invalid. | Undated elector signatures may be counted; dating by circulator acceptable per statute. |
| Validity of signatures challenged via registration verification? | Challenged signatures may be rebutted through the qualified voter file review. | Verification procedures support invalidation where registration or matching data fail. | Rebuttable presumption permits evidence to show signer is registered; circuit court could order review. |
| Did the petition count meet the 500-signature threshold after corrections? | Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient valid signatures after review (around 494–497). | Definitions and counting yielded insufficient signatures. | Court found sufficient valid signatures to merit ballot placement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stand Up for Democracy v Secretary of State, 492 Mich 588 (Mich. 2012) (de novo statutory interpretation and mandamus standards; authority to review election petitions)
- Barrow v Detroit Election Comm, 301 Mich App 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (mandamus framework for election challenges; ministerial duties)
- In re Certified Question, 433 Mich 710 (Mich. 1989) (statutory interpretation guiding review of executive action)
- Mich Educ Ass’n v Secretary of State (On Rehearing), 489 Mich 194 (Mich. 2011) (standards for interpreting mandatory vs. permissive actions; 'shall' vs 'may')
- Dep’t of Transp v Tomkins, 481 Mich 184 (Mich. 2008) (interpretation of statutory language and legislative intent)
- Johnson v Pastoriza, 491 Mich 417 (Mich. 2012) (interpretation of date-related mandatory provisions)
- Sullivan v Secretary of State, 373 Mich 627 (Mich. 1964) (ancillary review avenues for petitions and signatures)
- Wojcinski v State Bd of Canvassers, 347 Mich 573 (Mich. 1957) (historical framework for petition review)