Affidavit of identity (AOI) filing requirement; MCL 168.558(1); Const 1963, art 6, § 22; Filing of an AOI with a false statement; MCL 168.558(4); District court incumbent judges; Effect of performing circuit court judge duties; The Purity of Elections Clause in Const 1963, art 2, § 4(2); Whether the AOI requirement imposes additional requirements beyond those in Const 1963, art 6, § 19 for the office of judge; Amended AOI; MI Admin Code, R 168.3(2); Elector plaintiffs’ rights; Const 1963, art 2, § 4(1); Disqualification of a particular candidate

Rejecting plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges in this election case concerning a district court judgeship, the court affirmed the Court of Claims’ grant of summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiff-Sharma is a district court judge. The other two plaintiffs are electors from her district. It appeared “that, unbeknownst to Judge Sharma, she owed late filing fees” due to actions by the Treasurer of her reelection committee. As a result, she filed an AOI with a false statement that all late filing fees had been paid. Based on MCL 168.558(4), defendants concluded that due to the false statement, they “were required to disqualify Judge Sharma from the ballot.” Plaintiffs asserted that she “was not required to file an AOI.” On appeal, the court first noted that, even if this were so, she did file one and it contained false statements. “The filing of an AOI with a false statement requires her exclusion from the ballot under the plain language of MCL 168.558(4).” As to the merits of plaintiffs’ arguments, the court agreed with the Court of Claims that they were “not supported by the plain language of the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ primary position is that, under Const 1963, art 6, § 22, an AOI cannot be required of Judge Sharma.” But as a district court judge, she did “not occupy one of the three offices to which” that section applies. It next found that plaintiffs abandoned the claim that because she had “been performing the duties of a circuit court judge under a plan of concurrent jurisdiction, she is both a ‘de facto’ and ‘de jure’ circuit court judge.” And even if not abandoned, the court found it meritless. The fact that she was “authorized to ‘exercise the power and jurisdiction of the circuit court’ . . . does not make her a de jure circuit court judge.” The court also found plaintiffs’ reliance on the purity-of-elections clause meritless, noting that judicial officers, like almost all other candidates, are required to file an AOI. Further, the AOI requirement “does not add qualifications to the office of judge” and administrative rules for amending AOIs “do not apply in the case of false statements[.]” Finally, the court rejected the claim “that denying Judge Sharma access to the ballot harms the rights of voters,” such as the other two plaintiffs.