Challenge to judicial candidates’ eligibility to be on the primary ballot; A circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; MCL 600.605; O’Connell v Director of Elections; Writ of mandamus; Barrow v Wayne Cnty Election Comm’n; Requirements for being placed on the ballot; MCL 168.550; Affidavit of Identity (AOI); MCL 168.558(2); “Must”; Vyletel-Rivard v Rivard; Principle that an AOI need not show that the name stated on it is a name change if the reason for the change is due to marriage; MCL 168.552(3)(c); Strict compliance; Moore v Genesee Cnty; Sanctions for filing a frivolous complaint

The court held that the circuit court erred by finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims challenging the eligibility of two judicial candidates (defendants-Hathaway and Cox) to be on the 8/22 primary ballot. As such, it also held that the circuit court should have reached the merits of the claims and dismissed them because plaintiff failed to show that the candidates’ AOIs were deficient. Finally, it vacated the circuit court’s decision to award sanctions for plaintiff having filed a frivolous complaint. Plaintiff contended Hathaway and Cox were disqualified from being placed on the ballot due to deficient AOIs. The circuit court found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The court first found the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction. “[T]he simple fact is that plaintiff has not sued the state, any of its departments, or any state officials. Plaintiff has sued a county election commission and two individuals seeking elected office, and they are amenable to suit in the circuit court. Those claims fall within the broad subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court, and the circuit court erred by holding otherwise.” Turning to the merits, it rejected plaintiff’s claim that neither candidate’s AOI satisfied the requirement that “an AOI ‘must contain . . . the title of the office sought including the jurisdiction, district, circuit, or ward . . .’” As to Hathaway, plaintiff failed to show “any infirmity with [his] AOI, and thus, failed to demonstrate that [he] should be deemed ineligible to appear on the August primary ballot.” The AOI stated that Hathaway was “running for the office of ‘Judge’” and included the circuit in which he sought judicial office. In addition, plaintiff did not show any infirmity in his AOI on the basis that he legally changed his last name to adopt his wife’s last name. As to Cox, the court found that for the same reason discussed as “to Hathaway, [he] clearly satisfie[d] the requirement that the AOI state the ‘jurisdiction, district, circuit, or ward.’” The AOI also clearly listed “the title of the office sought: a ‘judgeship’ sought by a ‘judicial candidate.’” But the court vacated the circuit court’s decision to award attorney fees and costs because it was based “on a conclusion that the complaint was frivolous, a decision premised on the erroneous conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.