Challenge to judges’ appearance on the ballot; Alleged false statement on an affidavit of identity (AOI); MCL 168.558(2); Effect of a failure to disclose the pertinent jurisdiction; MI Admin R 168.2(2); Alleged failure to file two copies of an AOI; MCL 168.558(1); Mootness; The “likely to recur, yet evade judicial review” exception; Effect of a failure to obtain judicial review because of the voluntary conduct of a plaintiff; League of Women Voters of MI v Secretary of State; Effect of a plaintiff’s failure to request expedited review under MCL 600.321(1)(c) or immediate consideration under MCR 7.211(C)(6)

The court held that because the election at issue has passed and plaintiff failed to request an expedited appeal, his challenges were moot and no exception to mootness applied. Plaintiff sought to keep two incumbent judges off the 11/24 general election ballot, contending each judge made false statements in her AOI or failed to submit two copies of the AOI. The Court of Claims granted summary disposition for defendant, finding there was “no question of fact that the judges filed two copies of their AOIs,” and that “the statute did not require candidates to disclose counties in which they previously ran for election or nomination.” On appeal, the court held that because the general election had passed, the appeal was moot. It noted that although “a court may address a moot issue under some circumstances, doing so [was] unwarranted in this case because of plaintiff’s lack of diligence in prosecuting this appeal.” When plaintiff “filed his claim of appeal, there remained more than a month to litigate this matter to finality before defendant’s deadline for certifying candidates. Instead of seeking expedited review” or immediate consideration, he “essentially neglected the case for three months. He did not file a brief until this Court warned him that it was overdue, and he filed it almost two weeks after the election took place.” Thus, his “inaction ensured that this matter was not timely reviewed. This Court cannot craft any practical relief in this matter, and, because it could have done so but for plaintiff’s delays,” it declined to consider his moot issues. Dismissed.