Opinion
No. 107044.
September 5, 1996.
Summary Disposition September 5, 1996:
In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the decision of the Board of State Canvassers is vacated, and the case is remanded for an expedited determination whether the plaintiff filed the required number of valid signatures. MCR 7.302(F)(1). The duties described in MCL 168.552(7)-(9); MSA 6.1552(7)-(9) do not include a nonquantitative determination of the sort made by the board. Absent legislative clarification, the Supreme Court is persuaded that the board's authority is "to ascertain if the petitions have been signed by the requisite number of qualified and registered electors," so that it may make "[a]n official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of a nomination petition" on that numerical basis. MCL 168.552(7), (9); MSA 6.1552(7), (9). Leave to appear as amicus curiae is granted.
Court of Appeals No. 196624.
I concur in the result of the order, but I write separately to state as follows. First, I am not willing to hold that the Board of State Canvassers is unable to make nonquantitative determinations under MCL 168.552(7)-(9); MSA 6.1552(7)-(9). Second, I wish to emphasize that the Board of State Canvassers may choose to hold a hearing under MCL 168.552(8); MSA 6.1552(8). I find it particularly abhorrent that those who are working on behalf of a candidate who wishes to be a judge failed to respond to subpoenas and cooperate with the process. If the Board of State Canvassers chooses to hold another hearing, I would remind the board that since it is an agency as defined and covered by the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et seq.; MSA 3.560(101) et seq.; League General Ins Co v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n, 435 Mich. 338 (1990), it may enforce its subpoenas under the act. Should this remedy prove inadequate, I urge the Legislature to revisit MCL 168.552(8); MSA 6.1552(8), and prescribe remedies where it sees fit, so that the nomination process for elections cannot be perverted.