Mandamus; Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Cnty v Kent Cnty Treasurer; Petition under the Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) for an ordinance as to marijuana establishments; MCL 333.27956(1); Requirements for a petition; MCL 168.482; MCL 168.544c(1); MCL 168.488; Strict compliance; A “clear legal right” or duty; Political subdivision ballot questions; MCL 168.646a(2); A “ministerial act”; Hillsdale Cnty Sr Servs v Hillsdale Cnty; Remedy for a party seeking to compel action by election officials

Holding that the petition submitted by nonparty-Safer Mt Pleasant did not “strictly comply with the applicable statutory requirements[,]” the court concluded that defendant-city clerk had a duty to reject it, and that plaintiff was entitled to mandamus relief. Thus, it reversed the order denying plaintiff’s request for a mandamus writ, and directed defendant “to immediately rescind her certification of the ballot language to the” county clerk. Plaintiff was a ballot question committee formed to oppose Safer Mt Pleasant’s “proposed initiative to increase the number of marijuana establishments in” the city. The court first concluded that the “petition did not strictly comply with MCL 168.482(4). In the petition, the statement below the petition heading provided: ‘We, the undersigned qualified and registered electors, residents in the City of Mount Pleasant, in the County of Isabella, in the State of Michigan, respectively petition . . . .’ This statement did not indicate from which congressional district the registered electors were from.” In addition, the petition failed to “strictly comply with MCL 168.482(6) and MCL 168.544c(1) because it did not include in the ‘Certificate of Circulator’ the line ‘Circulator—Do not sign or date certificate until after circulating petition.’ Third, the petition did not strictly comply with MCL 168.482(6) and MCL 168.544c(1) because it included an affidavit and notary block that are not included in the petition form in MCL 168.544c(1).” While defendant asserted that she only had a duty to reject the petition if it lacked the required number of signatures, the court found that, pursuant to the last sentence of MCL 333.27956(1), a petition must be rejected if it either “does not comply with MCL 168.488 or . . . is not signed by the requisite number of qualified electors.” Given that the “MRTMA does not indicate who is to examine a petition to make sure that it complies with MCL 168.488 and is signed by the” required number of qualified electors, the court looked to MCL 168.646a(2), and held that “defendant was the person who had to determine whether the petition complied with MCL 168.488 and was signed by the requisite number of qualified electors.” Further, in determining whether it “complied with the statutory provisions made applicable through MCL 168.488, there was no discretion to be exercised by defendant. Strict compliance with those provisions was required.”