Opinion
358373
09-10-2021
Oakland Cares Coalition v. Jennifer Speagle
LC No. 2021-189465-AW
Elizabeth L. Gleicher Presiding Judge, Mark J. Cavanagh, J.ORDER
Kathleen Jansen Judge
The Court orders under MCR 7.216(A)(7) that the August 16, 2021 order denying plaintiffs complaint for mandamus is AFFIRMED. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel government officials to perform duties required by law. Stand Up for Democracy v Secretary of State, 492 Mich. 588, 618; 822 N.W.2d 159 (2012). "To obtain this extraordinary remedy, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that (1) the plaintiff has a clear, legal right to performance of the specific duty sought, (2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial, and (4) no other adequate legal or equitable remedy exists that might achieve the same result." Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v State of Michigan, ___ Mich ___; ___ N.W.2d ___ (Nos. 160658, 160660, decided 7/28/2021).
Approving petition signatures was not a ministerial act which could be compelled by mandamus. MCL 117.25(3) requires the city clerk to canvass the petition signatures and states that "the city clerk may check any doubtful signatures against the registration records of the city." Checking petition signatures against signatures on voters registration records requires exercise of judgment to resolve fact-based disputes and so cannot be considered a ministerial act. Taxpayers For Michigan Constitutional Govt, supra; Conyers v Wayne Co Clerk, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals (No. 344171, 6/12/2018) slip op at 2. Furthermore, defendant had no clear legal duty to certify plaintiffs petition issue for inclusion on the ballot. The deadlines of MCL 168.646a(2) do not control the charter amendment process under the Home Rule City Act (HRCA), MCL 117.1 et seq, or the 45-day period set by MCL 117.25(3). Oakland Cares Coaln v Keego Harbor City Clerk, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals (No. 358335, 9/1/2021).
The Court does not retain jurisdiction. This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2).
Jansen, J. I dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority because of the substantial unresolved issue of the validity of the signatures. Defendant initially certified the signatures obtained on the petition, but then recanvassed the signatures and deemed some invalid. However, plaintiff obtained sworn affidavits from the signatories attesting to the validity of their signatures. Therefore, I would remand to the trial court for an immediate evidentiary hearing to review the signatures disallowed by defendant in light of the affidavits filed.