Referendum petition; Petition circulator certificate; City or township requirement; MCL 168.544c; Wickman v Norway Twp Clerk; Michigan Zoning Enabling Act; MCL 125.3402; Mandamus; Conflict panel; MCR 7.215(J)

The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to mandamus relief compelling defendants to accept their referendum petition sheets and place the referendum on the ballot. Plaintiffs circulated a petition seeking a referendum on a township zoning ordinance regulating solar-energy facilities, but the township clerk rejected the petition sheets because the circulators listed mailing addresses rather than their city or township in the circulator’s certificate. On appeal, the court held that Wickman controlled because its facts were “nearly identical,” and that under stare decisis, the court was required “‘to reach the same result in a case that presents the same or substantially similar issues’” as a prior published decision. The court next rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Wickman was wrongly decided because the terms “City” and “Township” should be read as mailing-address designations rather than political subdivisions. The court reasoned that those words have “specific legal meanings” under Michigan law, and the Michigan Election Law “repeatedly refers to cities or townships in the context of political subdivisions.” The court also held that MCL 168.544c(4)’s reference to notice by certified mail did not change the analysis because that “singular reference to mailing” did not show that the Legislature intended a USPS mailing address to satisfy the certificate requirement. The court further rejected plaintiffs’ argument about nonresident circulators because a circulator who does not live in a city or township could accurately write “none” in that space. Finally, while the court recognized that voter disenfranchisement is “a significant concern,” it held that the concern was “more appropriately addressed by the Legislature” and did not permit the court to disregard the statute’s clear language. Affirmed.