Initiatory petition to amend a city charter; The Home Rule City Act; MCL 117.25; Mandamus; Whether defendant-city clerk had a legal duty to reject petitions with supplemental signatures; Whether the proposed amendment included more than one related proposition; MCL 117.21(3)

The court held that defendant-City Clerk did not have a clear legal duty to reject the supplemental signatures presented in support of an initiatory petition to amend the city charter. Further, it concluded that the proposed amendment was confined to one subject. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff-AAREC’s request for a writ of mandamus and its grant of summary disposition to defendants. AAREC is a ballot committee formed to oppose the initiatory petition, which was put forward by another ballot committee. The Clerk certified the initiatory petition for placement on the November ballot. AAREC sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Clerk to disregard supplemental signatures that were filed after the petition was initially filed. On appeal, the court reviewed a section of the Home Rule City Act addressing initiatory petitions, MCL 117.25. It noted that the statute “is silent on whether a clerk may accept for filing and canvassing, or must reject, any supplemental signatures that are submitted. Although § 25 does not contemplate or expressly allow the filing and canvassing of supplemental signatures, § 25 also does not expressly prohibit a clerk from accepting and canvassing supplemental signatures.” Thus, AAREC failed to point “to any source of law that prescribes and defines the duty to reject supplemental signatures nor demonstrated its clear legal right to performance of this specific duty.” AAREC also sought a declaratory judgment that, even if there were sufficient signatures, “the proposed amendment did not qualify for placement on the ballot” because it concerned more than one subject. It would add two sections to the city charter, §§ 15.11(a) and 15.11(b). Section 15.11(a) provides for an ordinance establishing “‘a municipal electric utility to be governed by the Ann Arbor Municipal Electric Utility Board described in’” § 15.11(b), which in turn provides that the board will have control of the utility. The court found that the § 15.11(b) subsections cited by AAREC were “fundamentally related to the board” and that the amendment was confined to the one subject of “the establishment and administration or governance of a municipal electric utility.”