Opinion
SC 164484 (13) COA 361583
06-07-2022
PHILIP CAVANAGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, BUREAU OF ELECTIONS, and SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendants-Appellees.
Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices
ORDER
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2022 order 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.
Viviano, J. (concurring).
I concur in the denial of leave to appeal. In my view, plaintiff has raised a potentially meritorious argument that the Board of State Canvassers cannot disqualify signatures on his petitions for lack of genuineness without checking them against the qualified voter file. See Johnson v Bd of State Canvassers, 509 Mich. (2022) (Docket No. 164461) (Viviano, J., concurring). But plaintiff has not provided any supporting evidence to indicate that a proper review of all the signatures he submitted would lead to a determination that he has a sufficient number of valid signatures to satisfy the statutory requirements. Therefore, although he only needs to identify 184 genuine signatures from the 1, 125 that were invalidated because of fraud, given that he has not raised at least a colorable claim that he had collected sufficient signatures, any remand to the Board would likely be futile.
Bernstein, J., would order oral argument.
Cavanagh, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with a party.