Opinion
362418
08-17-2022
Lee Estes v. Secretary of State
Mark J. Cavanagh Presiding Judge Douglas B. Shapiro James Robert Redford Judges
ORDER
The motion to intervene is GRANTED.
The motion to permit out-of-state attorney John C. Burns to appear and practice on behalf of intervenor Matt Maddock is GRANTED for this action only, effective on the date of the Clerk's certification of this order. However, Nicholas Somberg (P80416) will appear as counsel of record for this party. MCR 8.126(A).
The Clerk's Office shall e-mail a courtesy copy of this order to the State Bar of Michigan at prohacvice@mail.michbar.org immediately upon issuance.
Plaintiff's complaint for "declaratory judgment and mandamus" is treated as a complaint for mandamus, and it is DENIED. The complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches because of plaintiff's failure to pursue relief in this election matter in a timely fashion. See, e.g., Kuhn v Sec'y of State, 228 Mich.App. 319, 334-335; 579 N.W.2d 101 (1998); Purcell v Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 5-6; 127 U.S. 5; 166 L.Ed.2d (2006) (per curiam). Plaintiff raises allegations regarding public statements made by State Representative Matt Maddock from November 2020 through February 2022, yet plaintiff delayed in bringing this action until shortly before the upcoming general election, and after Maddock ran in the primary election. Plaintiff's request this late in the process would result in prejudice by essentially nullifying the votes cast in the primary election.
Plaintiff also failed to show entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. In particular, plaintiff has not demonstrated a clear legal duty on the part of defendants to review, let alone reject, Maddock's candidacy in the manner asserted. See Rental Props Owners Ass'n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich.App. 498, 518-519; 866 N.W.2d 817 (2014). The Court does not opine on whether plaintiff's allegations of insurrection or rebellion are valid. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it is merely a ministerial task for defendants to review his allegations, determine their veracity, ascertain whether the same amounts to an act of insurrection or rebellion, and then reach a conclusion about Maddock's eligibility to appear on the ballot. See Taxpayers for Mich. Const Gov't v Michigan, 508 Mich. 48, 82; 972 N.W.2d 738 (2021) ("A ministerial act is one in which the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment") (citation and quotation marks omitted).