Wilcoxon v Detroit Election Commission
Unpublished (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Election officials must provide a candidate with a formal, official declaration of findings when invalidating nominating petition signatures to allow for meaningful review. Furthermore, under MCL 168.544c, an elector's signature on a nominating petition is not invalid merely because the elector failed to include the date of signing.
Facts:
- On May 1, 2013, the plaintiff filed nominating petitions containing 561 signatures for the office of Detroit City Clerk.
- The Detroit department of elections reviewed the petitions, invalidated 58 signatures, and determined that the remaining 503 valid signatures were sufficient.
- On May 7, 2013, Daniel Baxter, the Detroit Director of Elections, sent the plaintiff a letter stating she had submitted 'sufficient signatures' but did not inform her that 58 signatures had been invalidated.
- Following the filing deadline, a challenge was filed against two of the plaintiff's petition pages because the circulator, Thomas Barrow, had incorrectly dated his oath as November 7, 2013, a future date.
- On May 22, 2013, Baxter sent the plaintiff a letter invalidating the signatures on the two post-dated pages.
- This May 22 letter was the first notice to the plaintiff that, in addition to the post-dated pages, the clerk had previously invalidated the 58 other signatures, reducing her total valid signatures to 475, which was below the required 500.
- The plaintiff reviewed the invalidated signatures and, on May 28, 2013, sent a letter to the City Clerk contesting the invalidation of more than 55 signatures and requesting a 'full and fair review'.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 5, 2013, the plaintiff filed a complaint for mandamus, superintending control, and injunctive relief in the circuit court against the Detroit City Clerk and the Detroit Election Commission.
- The circuit court entered a temporary restraining order on June 6, 2013, directing the plaintiff's name be restored to the primary ballot.
- The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on June 21, 2013, adding a count for declaratory judgment.
- After several hearings and a court-supervised review of the signatures, the circuit court determined the plaintiff had the required number of valid signatures.
- The circuit court entered a final order directing the defendants to place the plaintiff's name on the August 6, 2013 primary election ballot.
- The defendants, Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey and the Detroit Election Commission, appealed the circuit court's order to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an election commission violate its clear legal duty, warranting judicial intervention, when it disqualifies a candidate without providing a formal declaration of its findings for invalidating petition signatures and by invalidating signatures solely because the elector failed to include the date of signing?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the election commission violated its clear legal duty by failing to provide a proper declaration of its findings and by improperly invalidating signatures. The court reasoned that under MCL 168.552(7), election officials are required to make an 'official declaration of the findings' when determining the sufficiency of petitions. The indirect notice provided to the plaintiff in the May 22 letter was inadequate and deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to seek review from the Secretary of State, thus justifying her lawsuit in the circuit court. Furthermore, the court held that the defendants erred in invalidating signatures that lacked a date of signing. An analysis of the relevant statute, MCL 168.544c, shows no language requiring an elector to date their signature, in contrast to other election statutes, like the one for recall petitions, which explicitly require a date. Since the plaintiff demonstrated she had the minimum number of valid signatures once the improperly invalidated ones were restored, she had a clear legal right to be placed on the ballot.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that election officials must adhere strictly to statutory procedures, particularly those ensuring due process for candidates. It establishes that failure to provide a formal 'declaration of findings' for signature invalidations can render a disqualification illegitimate by depriving the candidate of a meaningful review. The ruling also provides a significant clarification of Michigan's election law, holding that an elector's failure to date a signature on a nominating petition is not a fatal defect under MCL 168.544c. This precedent limits the ability of election clerks to disqualify signatures based on non-statutory technicalities, thereby protecting candidates from arbitrary disqualification.
Unlock the full brief for Wilcoxon v Detroit Election Commission