Victoria Burton-Harris v. Wayne County Clerk

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Robert Davis’s motion to intervene and the denial of emergency relief concerning Kym Worthy’s eligibility for the 2020 Wayne County Prosecutor primary-election ballot. The court held that the election-related issues were moot but warranted review because they were likely to recur yet evade review. It concluded that intervention was untimely under the election schedule and that the trial court’s denial of mandamus was not an abuse of discretion, although the trial court had prematurely ruled on the merits before resolving the declaratory-judgment claim.

Holdings

1. Although the 2020 election-related claims were technically moot because the elections had occurred and the court could no longer remove Worthy's name from those ballots, the court considered the issues under the exception for matters that are publicly significant, likely to recur, and likely to evade judicial review.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Davis's motion to intervene because the motion was untimely under the election schedule and the resulting delay would have prejudiced election administration.
3. Under the amended MCL 168.558(4), an election officer may not certify a candidate whose affidavit of identity contains a false statement concerning information required by that subsection, and MCL 168.567 requires the Election Commission to correct resulting ballot errors; those duties are ministerial once the falsity is established.
4. The trial court did not err by applying laches to bar plaintiff's claims because plaintiff delayed challenging Worthy's affidavit until ballot printing was imminent, thereby prejudicing election officials and creating a risk of substantial financial waste and disruption.
5. The dispute concerning Worthy's inclusion on the 2020 primary ballot presented an actual controversy, but plaintiff's declaratory-judgment claim was nevertheless barred by laches.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal should be considered despite the 2020 elections having occurred and the requested ballot relief being moot.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Davis's motion to intervene by right or permissively as untimely and barred by laches.
3. Whether MCL 168.558(4), as amended, imposed a clear legal and ministerial duty on election officials not to certify a candidate whose affidavit of identity contained a false statement, and whether MCL 168.567 required correction of resulting ballots.
4. Whether laches barred plaintiff's mandamus and declaratory-judgment claims because the challenge was brought too late and prejudiced election officials.
5. Whether plaintiff had an actual controversy supporting declaratory relief.

Disposition

affirmed