Action for mandamus to require disqualification of a candidate & voiding of votes; Incompatible offices; MCL 168.558(5); Rebuttable presumption of laches in certain election actions; MCL 691.1031

Holding that MCL 691.1031’s rebuttable presumption of laches applied to plaintiff’s claim in this mandamus action, and that she did not rebut it, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal under the doctrine of laches. She sought to have the trial court order defendant-county clerk to disqualify a specified candidate (R) and void all votes for her for the offices of county treasurer and school board member in the 11/24 general election. Plaintiff asserted that “school board member and county treasurer were incompatible offices under MCL 168.558(5).” She filed this case “65 days after the primary election, 26 days before the general election, and at a time after absentee ballots had already begun to be circulated to voters.” At the time the trial court dismissed her complaint, “MCL 691.1031 provided a rebuttable presumption of laches in certain election actions . . . .” The court noted that plaintiff sought relief under the Michigan Election Law, and she sought to have R disqualified and all votes for R to be void. Thus, her action was “an action that affects the [11/5/24] election. Plaintiff brought her action on [10/10/24], which was 26 days before the [11/5/24] election. The rebuttable presumption of laches, therefore, applied to plaintiff’s claim, and plaintiff did not rebut the presumption.” While she tried “to argue that MCL 691.1031 did not apply to her claim because she was bringing her action under MCL 168.558(5), the plain language of MCL 691.1031 clearly states that the rebuttable presumption of laches applies to ‘all civil actions . . . affecting elections’ . . . .” In addition, it was not relevant that the relief she sought “would be granted after the election because MCL 691.1031 makes no such exception.”