Declaratory action challenging a candidate’s placement on a ballot based on attestations made in an affidavit of identity (AOI); MCL 168.558(4); Nykoriak v. Napoleon; Stumbo v Roe; Whether a filing complies with the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA); MCL 169.216(6); Corrections to a filing; MCL 169.216(7); Mootness; TM v MZ; Reviewing a moot issue if it is publicly significant, likely to recur, & yet likely to evade judicial review

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief challenging defendant-city council candidate’s (Ayers) placement on the election ballot based on attestations she made in her AOI. Plaintiff challenged Ayers’s candidacy for an at-large city council seat, contending her AOI contained a false statement because, “contrary to the attestation she made in her AOI, she had two outstanding campaign finance reports that were required to be filed under the” MCFA. When defendant-City Clerk refused to not certify Ayers’s name for placement on the ballot, plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief and a motion asking the trial court to decree that “(1) Ayers failed to file seven amended campaign finance reports she was required to file under the MCFA, (2) Ayers made a false statement in her AOI when she affirmed that she had filed all required campaign finance reports, and (3) the City Clerk had a duty to not certify Ayers’s name to [defendant-election commission] under MCL 168.558(4).” The trial court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint, “concluding amended campaign finance reports did not fall within MCL 168.558(4) and that plaintiff” failed to show Ayers made a knowingly false statement in her AOI. On appeal, the court first noted that although the case was moot, it would review the merits as there remained “a reasonable expectation that the issues involved in this appeal could recur yet escape judicial review.” It then rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by denying her motion for declaratory judgment. It noted that the plain language of MCL 168.558(4) “applies without distinction to both an initial report and an amended report.” But it found that the amended reports requested by the county clerk did not fall under the relevant provisions of the MCFA. The clerk requested the reports, but the “request was made more than four business days after the deadline for filing each report.” In addition, the clerk’s email “did not identify any error or correction in any of the seven campaign finance reports he requested. Instead, he asked that Ayers refile the reports as previously filed.” As such, this “request did not fall within the scope of MCL 169.216, and no party has identified any other provision of the MCFA that obligated Ayers to file a report or statement in response to the” clerk’s email. “Because the seven amended reports were not ‘required of the candidate . . . under the [MCFA],’ there is no evidence that Ayers made a false statement when she swore to have filed all reports required under the MCFA.” Affirmed.