American Independent Party of Michigan (Morse-Smith Faction) v. Secretary of State

• Decision Date: 01 September 1976
• Docket Number: No. 58834,MORSE--SMITH,58834
• Citation: 247 N.W.2d 17,397 Mich. 689
• Parties: AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY OF MICHIGAN (FACTION) and American Independent Party of Michigan (Chapman-Kroes Faction), Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. SECRETARY OF STATE and Director of Election Division of the Department of State, Defendants-Appellants. . Order
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 17

247 N.W.2d 17

397 Mich. 689

AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY OF MICHIGAN (MORSE--SMITH FACTION) and American Independent Party of Michigan (Chapman-Kroes Faction) Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. SECRETARY OF STATE and Director of Election Division of the Department of State, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 58834.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Order Sept. 1, 1976.

Per Curiam Nov. 23, 1976.

Paul R. Levy, Battle Creek, James E. Wells, Southfield, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Mark E. Blumer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, for defendants-appellants.

On order of the Court, defendants-appellants' emergency application for leave to appeal the August 25, 1976 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the plaintiffs' complaint for mandamus is DISMISSED. This order is issued on an emergent basis to enable defendants to prepare ballots on time for the forthcoming election. Opinion 397 Mich. 689, 247 N.W.2d 17.

LEVIN, J., dissents for the reason that an order of the Court of Appeals should not be modified until this Court can explain the basis for its decision.

KAVANAGH, C.J., not participating.

PER CURIAM.

The American Independent Party is entitled to a column on the 1976 general election ballot because of the vote its principal candidate received in the 1974 general election. M.C.L.A. § 168.685; M.S.A. § 6.1685. On March 6, 1976, the State Central Committee, chaired by Vern G. Morse, called the 'fall' state convention. M.C.L.A. § 168.598; M.S.A. § 6.1598. That same day a faction of the American Independent Party headed by Josephine Chapman split, formed its own State Central Committee, and called its own state convention. This faction apparently considered itself entitled to the name 'american Independent Party' and made no attempt to qualify as a new party under M.C.L.A. § 168.685.

Each faction held a convention, nominated candidates for state offices for the 1976 general election ballot, and presented its slate to the State Director of Elections under the vignette and name of the American Independent Party of the State of Michigan. The director advised each that he would accept An American Independent Party slate certified by both chairmen.

Federal and state litigation ensued. The Chapman faction sought relief in Federal district court and its complaint was dismissed. The Morse faction filed a complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. On August 25, 1976, that Court ordered the Secretary of State and Director of Elections to include both factions on the 1976 general election ballot 'under such names and vignettes as those parties shall respectively certify'. The Court of Appeals concluded that our decisions in Shields v. Jacob, 88 Mich. 164, 50 N.W. 105 (1891), and Stephenson v. Boards of Election Commissioners, 118 Mich. 396, 76 N.W. 914 (1898), were controlling because of the Legislature's failure to clarify the election code with regard to party schisms. Shields held and Stephenson affirmed that:

'The petition shows that the call for a convention of the Democratic party of the city of Detroit resulted in two nominating conventions; and we are of opinion that each of the tickets nominated at such conventions, containing the names of the persons nominated by such conventions, with the vignette and heading, if any is furnished by the committee of such conventions, should be printed upon the ballot. We do not consider that it is the province of the board of election commissioners to determine which convention represented the regular nomination convention of the party; but that it is the duty of said board to print and place upon the ballot the names of the candidates certified to them by the committee of either branch of the party represented by the two conventions held to nominate city officers, and that the names so certified to them in each list shall be embraced in the ticket so printed; and that it is their duty, further, if the same name of a party shall be certified by each of two committees, that the name so certified shall be printed without further addition or distinctive designation than such as is contained in the certificates furnished.' 88 Mich. 164, 169--170, 50 N.W. 105, 106.

We hold that because of intervening changes in the election code, neither Shields nor Stephenson requires the placing of more than one slate of candidates for each political party on the general election ballot.

At the time of Shields, the election code set forth minimal requirements for placement on the general election ballot:

(1) the candidate must have been 'nominated by the regularly called conventions of any party,'

(2) the name must have been timely 'forward(ed) (by the State, district of county committee of each political party) to the * * * board of election commissioners of each county * * *'. 1891 P.A. 190, § 10.

The same qualifications existed at the time of Stephenson, except that 1895 P.A. 17 and 1895 P.A. 271 further provided that no individual could be the nominee of more than one party for the same political office.

After Shields and Stephenson, however, the Legislature added the requirement that the vignette and names of candidates of a new political party be certified to the Secretary of State by the party's state central committee. 1929 C.L. 3061. More improtantly, in 1939 P.A. 262, the Legislature added the petition requirement for placement on the ballot of candidates and vignettes of new parties and the still extant vote-performance requirement for existing parties. At the time Shields and Stephenson were decided, the Legislature had made no attempt to define how political parties qualify for ballot status.

What is clear from the history of statutory provisions governing elections and political parties is that the election code in 1976 bears little resemblance to the statutes in effect in the late nineteenth century. The Legislature has provided the means by which new parties may obtain a place and old parties may continue on the ballot. Only one American Independent Party has qualified for A column. Those placed in that column are the candidates certified by the chairman and the secretary of the state convention.

The facts of this case illustrate the soundness of the legislative decision. As Justice White said for the United States Supreme Court:

'The general election ballot is reserved for major struggles; it is not a forum for continuing intraparty feuds.' Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 735, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1281, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974),

and:

'It is too plain for argument, and it is not contested here, that the State may limit each political party to one candidate for each office on the ballot and may insist that intraparty competition be settled before the general election by primary election or by party convention.' American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 781, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1306, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974).

Earlier, in speaking of delegate disputes in the National Democratic Party, the Court affirmed the principle that 'the convention itself is the proper forum for determining intraparty disputes', and that 'the political processes' should 'function free from judicial supervision' unless infringement of constitutional rights is alleged. O'Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1, 4, 5, 92 S.Ct. 2718, 34 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972). See also, Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 95 S.Ct. 541, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975).

The Director of Elections correctly left to the American Independent Party the resolution of the intra-party dispute.

In lieu of leave to appeal, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), we reverse the order of the Court of Appeals and dismiss the complaint for mandamus. No costs, a public question.

T. G. KAVANAGH, C.J., not participating.

WILLIAMS, COLEMAN, FITZGERALD, LINDEMER and RYAN, JJ., concur.

LEVIN, Justice (dissenting).

The American Independent Party of Michigan (AIP) qualified to have the names of its condidates appear on the 1976 general election ballot.

An intra-party dispute arose and the adherents of the opposing groups attended separate conventions. Each convention nominated candidates for the general election and their names were certified to the Secretary of State. The Director of Elections responded that unless the AIP furnished a single slate he would refuse to certify and candidates.

The Court of Appeals, following early decisions of this Court, directed that both slates appear on the ballot. This Court reversed with 'opinion to follow.'

The Director of Elections advised that the names of the persons nominated at the separate conventions would appear on the ballot to the extent there was no conflict between the slates. The names of AIP candidates for some congressional seats, the 8-year term for the Supreme Court and other offices appeared on the ballot. Because of conflict between the slates, the ballot did not contain the name of an AIP nominee for President of the United States, United States Senator, member of the State Board of Eduction and Trustee of Michigan State University.

In today's opinion, the Court declares that because of intervening changes in the election law the precedents relief on by the Court of Appeals do not 'require' the placing of more than one slate of candidates for a political party on the ballot. The Court states that "the political processes' should 'function free from judicial supervision' unless infringement of constitutional rights is alleged,' and that the Director of Elections 'correctly left to the American Independent Party the resolution of the intra-party dispute.'

Leave to appeal should have been denied. Alternatively, the case should have been remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding the nature of the dispute and determination whether, in the application of objective criteria, the court can decide which group was rightfully in control of the party, and for entry of an appropriate decree securing the...