Candidate affidavits of identity (AOIs); MI Admin Code, R 168.5 (7-day deadline for challenges to AOIs/good-cause exception); R 168.3 (a candidate’s ability to correct information in a filed AOI); MCL 168.164 & 168.558(1); AOI validity; Failure to list a former name; MCL 168.558(2) & (3); Exception for common-law names; MCL 168.560b(3); Statutory name-change procedures (MCL 711.1(1)); Department guidelines for common-law names; Applicability of the Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA) procedures for promulgating rules; Court of Claims (COC)

In consolidated appeals, the court rejected plaintiff’s challenges to the validity of two administrative rules related to candidate AOIs, and his contention that Department of State guidelines for common-law names should have been promulgated as rules under the APA. It also held that a candidate’s AOI did not need to indicate a name change, and found that plaintiff’s issues as to another candidate were moot. Thus, it affirmed the COC decisions in both appeals. In Docket No. 380907, plaintiff challenged the validity of Rule 168.5, which “imposes a 7-day period for challenging a candidate’s AOI” and gives filing officials “discretion to accept late challenges on a showing of good cause.” The court held the COC did not err in ruling plaintiff did not show that the rule’s “temporal limit” was invalid. Michigan’s “election statutes are silent about the procedures for officials to use when weighing AOI challenges. This silence is precisely the type of scenario that is appropriate for administrative rulemaking.” The court also found “no part of the challenged rule that goes beyond the parameters of defendant’s statutory authority, nor any part of the rule that is contrary to the Legislature’s intent.” Further, it found no merit in his “assertion that the good-cause exception is arbitrary or capricious.” The court concluded the county clerk “had the authority to reject plaintiff’s untimely challenge to” a nonparty candidate’s (E) AOI. And plaintiff’s “prolonged delay” in challenging E’s AOI after the deadline undermined his ability to show good cause. He also challenged the validity of Rule 168.3, which relates “to a candidate’s ability to correct information on” a filed AOI. He asserted it conflicts with MCL 168.164 and 168.558(1). But neither statute “deals with amending AOIs. There is a ‘gap’ in the statutory scheme when it comes to amending AOIs” and the rule “fills that gap.” Plaintiff’s claims in Docket No. 380909 concerned another nonparty candidate’s (M) “failure to list a former name on the AOI.” When MCL 168.558(3)(e) and “168.560b(3) are read together, a candidate’s AOI need not list a candidate’s name change if the candidate goes by a name that is a common-law name that meets the requirements of MCL 168.560b(3).” And because “the statutory name-change method did not abrogate the common law,” plaintiff’s argument here had no merit. M qualified for the exception in MCL 168.558(3)(e).