Postelection relief through quo warranto; MCL 600.4505; MCL 600.4545; Doctrine of laches; Frivolous appeal; MCR 1.109(E); MCL 600.2591

The court affirmed “the dismissal of plaintiff’s pursuit of postelection relief through quo warranto under the doctrine of laches.” Also, it did not believe that an award of sanctions for filing a frivolous action was appropriate here. The “case is one of several brought by plaintiff challenging the legitimacy of judicial incumbent candidates on the [11/22] general election ballot for failure to comply with candidate certification requirements.” Assuming, without deciding, “plaintiff had standing to bring a petition under MCL 600.4505 and MCL 600.4545, and made a sufficient showing of ‘material fraud or error’ related to the [11/22] election of judicial candidates for the Wayne Circuit Court,” the court concluded that plaintiff’s quo warranto application was barred by the doctrine of laches. It determined that plaintiff’s “preelection suit was barred by laches because he unreasonably delayed his pursuit of preelection relief, and granting his belated requested relief would have been unduly disruptive to the Secretary of State’s election preparation and planning, resulting in significant additional expense and expenditure of resources, and would prejudice the judicial candidates, who had expended significant time, energy, and resources on their judicial campaigns. These same factors do not cease to exist after the election. Indeed, plaintiff’s postelection attempt to pursue the same relief would be even more disruptive to defendants and prejudicial to the judicial candidates.” The court was not persuaded that the relevant cases demonstrated this appeal was frivolous. Nor could it conclude that any of the conditions in MCL 600.2591(3)(a) were met. It could not “conclude that plaintiff’s claim was devoid of arguable legal merit or that he had no reasonable basis to believe that the underlying facts were true, or that the action was meant to harass the other parties.”