Opinion
SC 163246 SC 163247 SC 163248 SC 163249 SC 163250 SC 163251 SC 163252 COA 354474 COA 354475 COA 354582 COA 354583 COA 354794 COA 354795 COA 354878
11-12-2021
GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and JAMES MAKOWSKI, Appellees. GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and BRENDA LACHAPPELLE, Appellees. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GARLIN GILCHRIST, II, Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and CHAD BAASE, Appellees. GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and CHAD BAASE, Appellees. GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and JAMES MAKOWSKI, Appellees. GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and MICHAEL GARABELLI, Appellees. GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and JOHN PARKINSON, Appellees.
Bd of State Canvassers: 00-000000
Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices
ORDER
Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2021 judgment 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.
Welch, J. (concurring). 2
I believe in the future this Court should take a closer look at Hooker v Moore, 326 Mich.App. 552, 560 (2018), which held that "the terms 'factually' and 'factual' as used in MCL 168.951a"-the provision that sets forth the requirements for recalling certain elected officials by petition-"require the reason stated in the recall petition to be in the form of a factual assertion but do not confer upon the Board [of State Canvassers] or upon this Court the task of determining the truthfulness of the statement." But these cases do not merit such an examination because, as both the majority and concurring opinions below concluded, the statements in the recall petitions at issue were neither materially misleading nor untruthful under MCL 168.951a. I further believe that the concerns raised about the potential for misrepresentation of an executive order in a recall petition calls for a legislative solution. MCL 168.951a(1)(c) states that "[i]f any reason for the recall is based on the officer's conduct in connection with specific legislation, the reason for the recall must not misrepresent the content of the specific legislation." Most of the recall petitions at issue in this matter concern the Governor's signing of various executive orders, and the Governor argues that one petition misrepresents the scope of Executive Order 2020-143. Executive orders, like legislation, have the force of law and can have significant impacts on the lives of Michiganders. Many of the same justifications for forbidding misrepresentation of the content of specific legislation in a recall petition likely apply with equal force to misrepresentation of the content or scope of an executive order. While I agree with the Court of Appeals' interpretation and application of MCL 168.951a(1)(c) as it relates to executive orders, it would likely benefit the residents of our state if the protections provided by that statute were extended to executive orders. The power to make such a change in the law rests with the Legislature and not this Court. Accordingly, I concur in the Court's decision to deny leave to appeal in these cases.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.