Requests for a writ of mandamus & declaratory relief seeking to remove judicial candidates certified to appear on the election ballot; Alleged failure to comply with MCL 168.558’s affidavit requirements; Laches; “Unclean hands”; Mootness; Issues of public significance that are likely to recur yet evade judicial review; Affidavit of identity (AOI)

The court held that the trial court did not err in applying laches to preclude plaintiff’s requests for a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief even though it found certain judicial candidates did not submit AOIs that complied with MCL 168.558(2). It further concluded that he did not meet his burden of proof to show that the challenged candidates failed to submit two copies of their AOIs as required by MCL 168.558(1). Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s claim that a candidate’s use of “N/A” on her AOI instead of stating “no party affiliation” failed to satisfy MCL 168.558(2). He sought to remove judicial candidates certified by defendant to appear on the 11/22 general election ballot, alleging they failed to comply with MCL 168.558’s affidavit requirements. The trial court found that he did not “establish some of his claimed instances of noncompliance, and although he did prove others, he failed to timely commence suit, such that relief was barred by” laches. The court addressed the merits of the case on appeal because it presented a “classic example of an issue that the courts will nevertheless review as matters of public significance that are likely to recur yet evade judicial review.” It upheld the trial court’s laches ruling, finding plaintiff failed to show “defendant engaged in the kind of misconduct that would constitute ‘unclean hands’” or that defendant’s conduct hindered his ability to bring this case sooner. The court determined that “plaintiff misapprehends what ‘unclean hands’ means, and the trial court did not err by refusing to apply it to preclude defendant from availing itself of the” laches doctrine. While he also argued laches could not apply because equitable doctrines do not apply where there is a statutory remedy, the court noted “‘the Michigan Election Law does not set forth any explicit procedure for resolving challenges to AOIs.’” In addition, given that mandamus and declaratory relief are “equitable in nature, there is no sound basis for concluding that equitable defenses, including laches, should not apply.” As to his MCL 168.558(1) claim, there was no indication “he inquired of or sought from defendant an affidavit by its employees attesting to the number of AOIs each challenged candidate submitted and whether they complied with” the statute. Lastly, the court found that “the plain language of MCL 168.558(2) did not require any specific terms be utilized to satisfy the criteria.” Affirmed.