Affidavit of Identity (AOI); MCL 168.558(4); Mootness; In re Indiana MI Power Co; Motion to intervene; MCR 2.209(A)(3); Mandamus; MCL 168.558 & MCL 168.848; Laches; Declaratory judgment; Temporary restraining order (TRO)

The court affirmed the order denying appellant-Davis’s motion to intervene and plaintiff’s emergency motion for a TRO, mandamus relief, and declaratory relief. The case involved events that occurred before the 2020 primary election and concerned the duties owed by defendants-County Clerk and Election Commission (collectively, Wayne County defendants) as to MCL 168.558(4). Intervenor-defendant-Worthy filed an AOI as to her candidacy for the office of Wayne County Prosecutor in the election. “Plaintiff, also a candidate for Wayne County Prosecutor, submitted a letter to Wayne County defendants” to challenge Worthy’s candidacy. The Clerk certified a list of candidates that included Worthy. Plaintiff immediately filed this case to preclude Worthy’s name from appearing on the ballots. Davis (a registered voter) filed an emergency motion to intervene. Although the issues before the court were moot, it held that “they should still be considered because the strict time constraints involved in elections create a reasonable expectation that the issues involved in this appeal could recur yet escape judicial review.” Davis challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to intervene. The court held that considering “the tight schedule mandated by the issues before” the trial court, its denial of his motion “as untimely was not outside the range of principled outcomes.” He also challenged the trial court’s denial of mandamus. The court determined that under the unambiguous language of the amended MCL 168.558(4), “the Clerk’s duty is clear—if a candidate’s AOI contains a false statement, the Clerk cannot certify that candidate’s name to the Election Commission.” It found that the “trial court’s denial of mandamus on the merits was premature in light of plaintiff’s unresolved declaratory judgment claim.” But it determined that plaintiff’s “delay caused substantial prejudice to Wayne County defendants because it impaired their ability to produce the primary election ballots within the time frame required by statute and exposed them to significant financial waste if reprinting was required.” Thus, the trial court did not err by holding that plaintiff’s action was barred by laches. Lastly, as to the denial of a declaratory judgment, the court held that there was “an actual and present controversy before the court that required judgment to guide the parties’ future conduct and rights with respect to Worthy’s inclusion on the 2020 primary election ballot. Although the court did not address this issue, we can reasonably infer that the trial court’s application of laches extended to plaintiff’s declaratory judgment count.” The trial court did not err by holding that “plaintiff’s delay in challenging Worthy’s AOI precluded her claims. The trial court’s reasoning is even more compelling in the context of a declaratory judgment claim because such a claim would have been ripe for review well before the Clerk certified the candidates for the 2020 primary election and the Election Commission approved ballot printing.” Thus, the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s action.