Whether candidates’ nominating petitions conformed to MCL 168.544c(1); Beydoun v Board of State Canvassers; Strict compliance with content requirements; Moore v Genesee Cnty; Failure to strike “township” from the heading; MCL 168.552a; Whether a candidate’s legal name must be included in the heading; Christenson v Secretary of State; Emergency motion for declaratory judgment & a writ of mandamus; Mootness; Issue of public significance likely to recur but evade judicial review

In this case concerning nominating petitions’ conformance to MCL 168.544c(1), the court held that (1) intervening defendant-Jenkins’s “petitions included the required content and were not rendered invalid by the failure to strike ‘township’ from the heading” and (2) there was no authority for plaintiff’s position that intervening defendant-Durhal “was required to include his legal name in the heading of” his petitions. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief related to the 8/25 Detroit mayoral primary election. His complaint alleged that defendants-city clerk and election commission “were precluded from certifying Jenkins and Durhal as candidates in the” election because their nominating petitions failed to conform to MCL 168.544c(1). The trial court dismissed his complaint and denied his emergency motion. On appeal, as an initial matter the court agreed with defendants and Jenkins that the appeal was moot but found it “appropriate to consider the merits of the underlying issues[.]” As to Jenkins, while “the statute requires that the petition include an instruction to ‘strike one’ from the petition, i.e., either ‘city’ or ‘township’” it was apparent that the word township “was not stricken from” her petitions. The court concluded it was clear from the plain language of MCL 168.544c(1) “that the real purpose of this portion of the petition heading is to document and declare that the electors signing the nominating petition are registered and qualified voters of either a particular city or particular township. Jenkins’s petitions complied with this requirement.” Her petitions “specifically identified in the heading ‘Detroit’ as the city common to all the signatories to the nominating petition. Thus, Jenkins submitted nominating petitions that included the required content and, therefore, strictly complied with the” statute’s content requirements. Plaintiff also asserted “that Durhal’s legal name was ‘Frederick Charles Durhal, Jr.,’ and the nominating petitions incorrectly identified him as ‘Frederick Durhal.’” The court agreed with the trial court “that MCL 168.544c(1) did not require Durhal to list his legal name in the heading of the nominating petition.” The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling “that the issuance of a declaratory judgment or a writ of mandamus was unwarranted” and in dismissing the complaint. Affirmed.