Challenges to candidate affidavits of identity (AOIs); MCL 168.558(2) (correct legal name requirement); Burden of proof; MCL 168.558(3); Purported Michigan Campaign Finance Act violations; Standing; MCL 169.215(17); Preelection campaign statement; MCL 169.233(2)(a); Alleged late fee owed

As to one of the two mayoral candidates at issue, the court held that plaintiff failed to establish that one candidate’s (nonparty-R) AOI violated MCL 168.558(2). As to the other candidate (nonparty-M), it concluded that even assuming plaintiff had standing, the trial court correctly rejected his challenges based on purported Michigan Campaign Finance Act violations on the merits. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s requests for relief as to these two candidates, leaving them on the ballot. His challenge as to R arose from the spelling of her first name on her AOI. In the first line, it was spelled “Elen.” Further down the form she stated she wished it to appear on the ballot spelled “Elene.” Plaintiff alleged the latter was the correct spelling and as a result, the AOI was “fatally defective[.]” He asserted that he offered uncontroverted proof that her first name was Elene. But all he provided were “a few documents filed in a federal case many years ago.” They did not prove the correct spelling of R’s “first name, let alone that [R] is not using the name she was given at birth. It is entirely possible that the spelling of [R’s] name on the few documents plaintiff found is incorrect.” He bore the burden to produce “a sufficient record to prove his claim” and the court held that the record he presented did not meet this burden. As to M, he argued she “must be disqualified because she did not file a preelection campaign statement before the [8/22] primary election, or a postelection campaign statement for” that election. But “she did file the preelection statement; it was the Wayne County Clerk who then ‘deleted’ it and directed [M] to amend it to reference the [11/22] general election.” Further, the Clerk was correct “that the statement was not required as to the” primary election. M intended to be a candidate on the primary ballot. But “there was no mayoral election placed on this ballot. [M] could not have been a candidate or nominee for Highland Park Mayor in that particular election, as the office did not appear on that ballot at all. As a result, MCL 169.233(2)(a) did not require [M] to file a preelection or postelection campaign statement” as to that primary election. As to plaintiff’s assertion that M “owes a $25 late fee related to a 2011 campaign filing[,]” the record was “inadequate to show that the fee was not paid.”