Petition for a recount; MCL 168.862; Duty to investigate; MCL 168.869 & 168.870; Mootness; Barrow v Detroit Election Comm’n; Public significance of issues arising from the interpretation & application of Michigan’s election laws; Gleason v Kincaid; Mandamus; Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Cnty v Kent Cnty Treasurer; Ministerial act; Citizens Protecting MI’s Constitution v Secretary of State

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying plaintiff-mayoral candidate’s emergency motions for mandamus, declaratory judgment, and to show cause. After losing the primary election, plaintiff moved the trial court to declare that defendant-board of canvassers had a duty to investigate his claims of fraud and to enter an order compelling it to fulfill this duty. On appeal, he argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motions because MCL 168.869 places a clear legal duty on defendant to investigate his claims of fraud. Plaintiff conceded the issue was moot, but because it “is likely that candidates in future primaries will petition for recounts, and it is likely that those candidates could be dissatisfied with the adequacy of a board of county canvassers’ investigations” into his or her claims, the court agreed to consider the substantive merits of plaintiff’s argument. But it concluded that while defendant had a clear legal duty to investigate, the trial court “correctly found that mandamus was inappropriate here. This is because, in the context of MCL 168.869, the act of investigating is an act that is discretionary in nature—not ministerial.” In addition, none of MCL 168.869’s “neighboring statutes prescribe or support a particular manner of investigation either.” In short, defendant had no duty to investigate “in a particular manner. The manner in which to conduct the investigation was left to defendant’s discretion.” As such, the act plaintiff sought “to compel is not ministerial, and it would be inappropriate to compel defendant to investigate any further or in any particular manner. Had defendant wholly declined to investigate whatsoever (as plaintiff suggests), mandamus may have been appropriate. But defendant did not decline to investigate: it conducted a recount.” Thus, the trial court correctly determined “mandamus was inappropriate here. At the same time, because plaintiff’s clear legal rights were satisfied by defendant’s recount and plaintiff was entitled to nothing further, the trial court correctly denied plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment.” Affirmed.