Mandamus relief; Removal of Proposal P from the ballot for the upcoming primary election; Whether the Michigan Constitution grants intervening defendant-appellant Detroit Charter Revision Commission (DCRC) the power to submit a proposed charter revision to the voters regardless of statutory restrictions; Const 1963, art 7, §§22 & 34; Whether DCRC can submit the proposed revision to the voters regardless of whether the Governor approved the revision; The Home Rule City Act (HRCA); MCL 117.22; Whether under MCL 117.22 DCRC can continually redraft the proposed charter provision beyond the filing deadline; Findings that removal of Proposal P from the ballot is a ministerial task; Whether the trial court correctly denied injunctive relief; Mootness

Finding no errors of legal interpretation or abuse of discretion in these consolidated appeals, the court affirmed the trial court’s opinion and order granting plaintiffs mandamus relief and compelling intervening defendants-Detroit City Clerk and the Detroit Election Commission to remove Proposal P (which read “Shall the City of Detroit Home Rule Charter proposed by the [DCRC] be adopted?”) from the ballot for the upcoming primary election. Intervening defendant-appellant DCRC asserted that the trial court erred by granting plaintiffs the requested mandamus relief. The court rejected the DCRC’s claim that “the Michigan Constitution grants it the power to submit a proposed charter revision to the voters regardless of statutory restrictions.” It determined that the language of §§ 22 and 34 “clearly show an intent to give cities broad powers to conduct their own affairs relating to their government.” However, it held that “the wording of § 22 expressly states that a city’s power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its government is ‘subject to the constitution and law.’ More significantly, the first sentence of § 22 states that the electors of each city have the power and authority to adopt and amend its charter ‘[u]nder general laws.’ Reasonable minds would interpret the phrases ‘under general laws’ and ‘subject to the constitution and law’ to mean that city voters have the power to adopt a new charter or amend its charter within the prescriptions of Michigan law, including the HRCA.” The court also rejected DCRC’s claim that “it can submit the proposed revision to the voters regardless of whether the Governor approved the revision.” Further, it rejected DCRC's assertion that “under MCL 117.22 it can continually redraft the proposed charter provision beyond” the filing deadline. Finally, it determined that the trial court did not err by concluding that removal of Proposal P from the ballot is a ministerial task.