Ballot access; Nominating petitions; Signature validity; MCL 168.552; Mandamus; Clear legal duty; Neilson v Board of State Canvassers; Duplicate signatures; McCoy v Berrien Cnty Clerk; Declaratory relief

The court held that plaintiff was not entitled to mandamus or declaratory relief compelling defendant to certify him as a candidate for Oakland County Probate Court Judge. Plaintiff submitted nominating petitions with 4,716 signatures, but the Oakland County Clerk found only 3,862 valid signatures. The Secretary of State upheld the insufficiency determination after concluding that plaintiff remained 115 signatures short. In this original action, the court first held that defendant did not have a clear legal duty to consider 111 voter statements submitted after the statutory appeal deadline because Michigan Election Law “does not afford a candidate unlimited opportunities to rehabilitate ‘doubtful’ signatures,” and nothing required defendant to consider documents filed “after the deadline for him to seek review.” The court also held that review of those voter statements was not ministerial because the method for reviewing petition signatures is “a matter of discretion.” The court next rejected plaintiff’s arguments about 90 additional signatures, noting that they would not cure the 115-signature deficit, and holding that duplicate signatures were properly rejected because “‘signatures appearing twice or more upon the same or several sections of a petition should be rejected.’” As to signatures rejected for address, name, and date issues, plaintiff failed to provide sufficient record evidence, and “when the facts are not clear, mandamus cannot lie.” The court further held that “defendant was ‘not required to count signatures with dates that could not be properly verified.’” Because plaintiff did not establish a clear legal duty to certify his name for the primary ballot, mandamus was unavailable, and the court dismissed his declaratory-relief request for lack of jurisdiction. Complaint denied.