Opinion
361697
06-13-2022
Timothy Killeen v. Wayne County Clerk
LC No. 22-005959-AA
Anica Letica Presiding Judge, Kirsten Frank Kelly, Noah P. Hood Judges.
ORDER
Anica Letica Presiding Judge.
Pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7), the Wayne County Circuit Court's order of June 2, 2022 granting plaintiff's request for writ of mandamus is AFFIRMED, although for reasons other than those stated by the circuit court. Plaintiff met his burden to demonstrate the extraordinary remedy of mandamus by showing that he has a clear legal right to the performance of a specific duty, defendant clerk has a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, which is ministerial; and plaintiff has no other legal or equitable remedy. See Taxpayers for Mich. Constitutional Gov't v Michigan, 508 Mich. 48, 82; 972 N.W.2d 738 (2021). Intervenor's claim that plaintiff's affidavit of identity (AOI) under MCL 168.558(4) contained an alleged falsehood must fail. The AOI, a requirement for plaintiff's appearance on the primary ballot, required plaintiff to include a signed and notarized statement that as of the date of the affidavit, "all statements, reports, late filing fees, and fines required of the candidate . . . have been filed or paid . . . ." MCL 168.558(4). The broad and unambiguous statutory term "all" encompasses amended reports, and such reports must be required by the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA), MCL 169.201 et seq. Reed-Pratt v Detroit City Clerk, ___ Mich.App. ___; ___ N.W.2d ___ (issued December 16, 2021, Docket No. 357150), slip op at 5. The MCFA requires officials, like defendant, to notify a candidate of errors or omissions in a statement or report by registered mail within four days of the statement or report's filing date. See MCL 169.216(6). Here, there is no evidence that defendant sent notices via registered mail. Setting aside the registered mail requirement of the MCFA, the parties do not dispute that defendant provided several notices well after four business days past the filing deadline. Some notices came months later. We can find no basis in the plain language of the MCFA for a requirement that a candidate must file amended campaign reports in response to successive notices of error and omission sent months after the deadline for filing a statement or report under the act. The MCFA is silent on this point, and we decline to read any unstated provisions into it. See McQueer v Perfect Fence Co, 502 Mich. 276, 286; 917 N.W.2d 584 (2018). If the Legislature had intended for the MCFA to require successive amendments from candidates in response to late-filed notices of error, it could have so indicated.
Consequently, under the unique facts of this case, intervenor did not demonstrate that the filing of an amended report was required of the candidate for purposes of MCL 168.558(4). Intervenor thus did not prove that the contested statement in plaintiff's AOI was actually false. Id. Candidate applicants must "strictly comply with the preelection form and content requirements identified in the Michigan Election Law," which includes supplying "a facially proper affidavit of identity." Moore v Genesee Cty, ___ Mich.App. ___; ___ N.W.2d ___ (issued June 24, 2021, Docket No. 355291), slip op at 3 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Where plaintiff's AOI did not contain a falsehood, he had the clear legal right to have defendant certify his name as a candidate. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting mandamus. See Christenson v Secretary of State, 336 Mich.App. 411, 417; 970 N.W.2d 417 (2021).
Intervenor contends that, where there are factual disputes, mandamus does not lie. See Powers v Dignan, 309 Mich. 530, 533; 16 N.W.2d 62 (1944) (ruling that mandamus generally should not be granted "to compel a public officer to perform a duty dependent upon disputed and doubtful facts"). But the legal issue here does not involve a factual dispute. Plaintiff does not dispute that he did not file all amendments. Rather, the legal inquiry here is whether, under the undisputed facts, plaintiffs AOI contained a false statement. Given the above reasoning, the answer to that question is no.
We also question whether intervenor proceeded diligently in this election matter. The people of Michigan "deserve thoughtful, cogent, and well-reasoned decisions" and the judiciary should have "ample time to meaningfully review such matters, which are vitally important to the people of Michigan." Johnson v Bd of State Canvassers, ___ Mich ___; ___ N.W.2d ___ (issued June 3, 2022, Docket No. 164461) (Zahra, J., concurring). Intervenor's delay in challenging plaintiffs campaign finance reports from 2013 and 2014, doing so months after plaintiff filed his most recent AOI, does not reflect diligence, and shortens the already abbreviated timeframe for judicial review.
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). This is our final judgment in this matter, see MCR 7.215(E)(1), and this Court therefore retains no further jurisdiction.