Summary
challenging the Secretary of State's unsolicited mass mailing of absentee ballot applications
Summary of this case from O'Halloran v. Sec'y of StateOpinion
SC: 162007 COA: 354622
12-28-2020
Robert DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendant-Appellee.
Order
On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration and for leave to file brief amicus curiae are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the September 16, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to intervene is DENIED as moot.
Viviano, J. (dissenting).
I would grant leave to hear this case to review whether the Secretary of State had legal authority to mail millions of applications for absentee ballots to voters who did not request them. Our Constitution requires the Secretary of State to "perform duties prescribed by law. " Const. 1963, art. 5, § 9 (emphasis added). In general, " ‘[t]he extent of the authority of the people's public agents is measured by the statute from which they derive their authority, not by their own acts and assumption of authority.’ " Mich. Ed. Ass'n v. Secretary of State (On Rehearing) , 489 Mich. 194, 225-226, 801 N.W.2d 35 (2011), quoting Sittler v. Bd. of Control of Mich. College of Mining & Tech. , 333 Mich. 681, 687, 53 N.W.2d 681 (1952). The Court of Appeals’ partial dissent examined the statutes at issue and concluded that the Secretary of State's action exceeded her authority. I believe the partial dissent raises a number of issues that this Court should address. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.