Affidavit of Identity (AOI); MCL 168.558; Seven-day deadline for challenging an AOI; MCL 168.552(2); Mich Admin Code R 168.5; Mootness; Public-significance exception; Administrative rulemaking authority; Statutory gap

The court held that Rule 168.5’s seven-day deadline for challenging an AOI was valid because defendant-Secretary properly exercised delegated rulemaking authority to fill a procedural gap in Michigan election law. A candidate (nonparty-A) filed her AOI on 4/20/26, and plaintiff-Davis did not challenge it until 5/8/26, after the 4/28/26 deadline. The Secretary rejected his challenge as untimely and found that he lacked good cause for the delay. After the Court of Claims granted the Secretary summary disposition, the 2026 primary occurred and A lost. Thus, all of Davis’s appellate issues were moot. But the court addressed the facial validity of Rule 168.5 under the exception for a matter “of public significance that is likely to recur, yet evade judicial review.” It noted that ballot and AOI disputes are particularly likely to evade review because of election deadlines and that a published ruling would provide guidance beyond the parties. On the merits, the court expressly adopted the reasoning of an earlier unpublished decision involving Davis. Michigan election statutes “are silent about the procedures for officials to use when weighing AOI challenges.” The court determined that “[t]his silence is precisely the type of scenario that is appropriate for administrative rulemaking” where the Legislature has delegated rulemaking authority. It found nothing in the rule that exceeded the Secretary’s statutory authority or conflicted with legislative intent and concluded that “the seven-day deadline for challenging an AOI was a permissible delegation of rulemaking authority.” Thus, the filing official had authority to reject Davis’s untimely challenge, and the Court of Claims properly granted the Secretary summary disposition. Affirmed.