Right to vote; Residency requirements; Const 1963, art 2, § 1; MCL 168.759a(3); Whether individuals who do not presently live in Michigan can vote in Michigan elections; Injunctive & declaratory relief under MCR 2.605; Laches; Nykoriak v Napoleon; Rebuttable presumption of laches as to an election-related civil action filed less than 28 days before the affected election; MCL 691.1031; Laches as an affirmative defense; Prejudice; Home-Owners Ins Co v Perkins; Dicta

The court held that the Court of Claims correctly applied laches to bar plaintiffs’ expedited lawsuit. Plaintiffs challenged the right of individuals who do not presently live in Michigan to vote in Michigan elections. “The Court of Claims opined that ‘it is hard to imagine a more prejudicial situation’ than that arising out of plaintiffs’ complaint, filed less than a month in advance of the 2024 election.” It found that “all ‘requested relief is barred by the doctrine of laches.’” Despite this finding, because the issue was likely to recur, it considered plaintiffs’ challenge on the merits, and granted summary disposition for defendants. On appeal, the court found that “the Court of Claims’ ruling on laches was correct as a matter of law. Simply stated, plaintiffs are the masters of their complaint, and they did not expressly allege a claim or expressly request relief outside of the November 2024 election.” Based on “the language in their own pleading, plaintiffs sought a complete and final resolution of their complaint on an expedited basis, with relief directed at the” 11/5/24 general election. Their desire for relief applicable to the 11/24 “election did not require such a highly targeted and fully expedited approach; plaintiffs could have filed a complaint on a regular track and separately requested preliminary injunctive relief as to the [11/24] election. They did not. By the time [they] attempted to tack on additional requests for relief, they had already received what they asked for—an expedited hearing on their bid for final judgment and relief in advance of the” 11/24 election. “As for the Court of Claims’ analysis of the merits of plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional and statutory claims,” the court agreed “with the sentiments provided by both parties at oral argument . . . any such discussion on the merits was dicta.” It also agreed “with defendants, as they stated in their brief and again at oral argument, that ‘to the extent Plaintiffs argue the Court of Claims somehow barred them from raising their constitutional claim in the future, they misapprehend the court’s ruling.’ The instant lawsuit was properly dismissed on the basis of laches; any further discussion of plaintiffs’ claims was unnecessary to that disposition below and is unnecessary to our affirmance of it here. The adjudication of the merits of any such claims can await another day and another lawsuit.” Affirmed.