Citizens for Common Sense v. Atty. General, 228936
| Decision Date | 20 October 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 228936,228936 |
| Citation | 620 N.W.2d 546 |
| Parties | (Mich.App. 2000) CITIZENS FOR COMMON SENSE IN GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Saad and Meter, JJ.
Plaintiff Citizens for Common Sense in Government ("Citizens") is a ballot question committee that opposes a ballot proposal sponsored by Let Local Votes Count ("LLVC"). The Michigan Municipal League ("MML") is a private nonprofit corporation established to advise and lobby for cities and villages in Michigan1 MML funds its activities largely from fees assessed against its member cities and villages.2 MML allegedly supports and has expended funds to support LLVC's ballot proposal3 regarding legislation which affects local governments.
Section 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act ("MCFA"), MCL 169.257; MSA 4.1703(57), prohibits public bodies, such as MML's membership, from directly spending money to influence a ballot proposal. Citizens contends that MML expenditures to influence this ballot proposal, which plaintiff claims comes in part from money donated by public bodies, provides the vehicle for cities to do indirectly what § 57 prohibits them from doing directly.
Fourteen years before the Legislature passed § 57, the Attorney General issued an opinion that MML did not violate state law by spending funds to influence a ballot proposal.4 Plaintiff says that MML's conduct violates § 57, but opines that due to Attorney General Opinion 5882, the Secretary of State will not enforce the "law" against MML because the Secretary of State must abide by the Attorney General's 1981 erroneous opinion.
We will not address the merits of what plaintiff regards as the ultimate issue (does MML's expenditures violate § 57's prohibitions against municipalities expending public funds to influence ballot proposals) because this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide this issue now.
We lack jurisdiction because (1) the MCFA provides the exclusive procedure for enforcement of its provisions through the Secretary of State and until these avenues are tried and exhausted, we have no jurisdiction and (2) under Michigan law, there is no case or controversy, but only mere speculation by plaintiff that the Secretary of State will automatically defer to the 1981 Attorney General Opinion. Under the MCFA and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), MCL 24.210 et seq.; MSA 3.560(201) et seq., plaintiff, and we, must give the Secretary of State an opportunity to interpret and enforce § 57, and we must resist plaintiff's invitation to presume how the Secretary of State or the Attorney General may opine or act in light of § 57.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
Citizens is a ballot question committee that opposes a ballot proposal to amend the Michigan constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature on any legislative action that "intervenes" in areas of "municipal concern."5 The MML, which is not a party to this action, is a nonprofit corporation whose membership consists of cities and villages.6 The MML's purpose, in part, is to encourage legislation beneficial to the municipalities of Michigan. The MML funds its activities primarily with dues that are assessed based on the population of each member city and village.7 MML supports the ballot proposal and, according to plaintiff, has illegally expended funds to that end.
In 1981, the Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that the MML may, subject to the requirements of the MCFA, expend funds in connection with the passage or defeat of a ballot proposal. OAG, 1981-1982, No 5882, p 137 (April 22, 1981). Subsequent to that opinion, the Legislature amended MCFA to expressly bar the use of public funds for campaign contributions.8 1976 PA 388, as added by 1995 PA 264, 1996 PA 590, MCL 169.257; MSA 4.1703(57). Section 57 in relevant part prohibits cities and municipalities from expending funds to support or oppose a ballot question.
Citizens contends that MML's expenditure of funds violates § 57 of the act because cities pay dues to MML and MML expends some of its funds to support the ballot issue in contention.9 Plaintiff also asserts that, because state agencies are required to follow Attorney General opinions, the Secretary of State will follow 1981 OAG 5882 and will not enforce § 57 against the MML. Rather than seek redress under the MCFA or pursuant the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq.; MSA 3.560(201) et seq., plaintiff filed an action in circuit court seeking a declaratory ruling that "1981 OAG 5882 does not accurately state the law and that the Secretary of State is not bound by, and may not follow, this opinion."
The parties filed cross-motions for summary disposition.10 The circuit court granted defendants' motion ruling that (1) the MCFA did not create a private right of action, (2) Citizens had administrative remedies available that had not been pursued, and (3) because plaintiff's action was based on speculation as to how the Secretary of State would rule, there was no actual controversy upon which the court could properly pass. The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary disposition.
Whether the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Rudolph Steiner School of Ann Arbor v Ann Arbor Charter Twp, 237 Mich App 721, 730; 605 NW2d 18 (1999); W A Foote Memorial Hosp v Dep't of Public Health, 210 Mich App 516, 522; 534 NW2d 206 (1995). Summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is proper when a plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Blair v Checker Cab Co, 219 Mich App 667, 671; 558 NW2d 439 (1996).
The burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the plaintiff. Universal Am-Cam Ltd v Attorney General, 197 Mich App 34, 37; 494 NW2d 787 (1992); Gooley v Jefferson Beach Marina, Inc, 177 Mich App 26, 28; 441 NW2d 21 (1989). The circuit courts of this state have subject-matter jurisdiction to issue declaratory rulings, injunctions or writs of mandamus. Const 1963, art 6, § 13; MCL 600.605; MSA 27A.605; Universal Am-Cam, supra. However, if the Legislature has expressed an intent to make an administrative tribunal's jurisdiction exclusive, then the circuit court cannot exercise jurisdiction over those same areas. MCL 600.605; MSA 27A.605; Universal Am-Cam, supra.
We lack jurisdiction because (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive administrative remedies of the MCFA and (2) under Michigan law, there is no case or controversy.
We lack jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Section 15(9) of the MCFA provides as follows:
There is no private right of action, either in law or in equity, pursuant to this act. The remedies provided in this act are the exclusive means by which this act may be enforced and by which any harm resulting from a violation of this act may be redressed. [MCL 169.215(9); MSA 4.1703(15)(9).]
The Legislature has directed the Secretary of State to promulgate rules and issue declaratory rulings to implement the MCFA pursuant to the APA. MCL 169.215(1)(e); MSA 4.1703(15)(1)(e). The APA provides a formal procedure for submitting requests for declaratory rulings and governing treatment of requests. Greenbriar Convalescent Ctr, Inc v Dep't of Public Health, 108 Mich App 553, 560; 310 NW2d 812 (1981). Under the APA, an agency may issue declaratory rulings as to the applicability of statutes, rules or orders of the agency. MCL 24.263; MSA 3.560(163). Plaintiff could have requested a declaratory ruling regarding § 57 and, if the Secretary of State refused to issue such a ruling, plaintiff could have sought a declaratory judgment in the circuit court. MCL 24.264; MSA 3.560(164). If the plaintiff had sought and the Secretary had issued a ruling, that ruling would have been subject to judicial review under MCL 24.263; MSA 3.560(163).
Though plaintiff never attempted to comply with the statute11 plaintiff argues that it was not required to exhaust the administrative remedies promulgated in the MCFA because to do so would "require a useless effort." Plaintiff argues that seeking such a ruling would be futile because the Secretary of State is required to follow 1981 OAG 5882. See Michigan ex rel Oakland Co Prosecutor v Dep't of Corrections, 199 Mich App 681, 691; 503 NW2d 465 (1993) (). However, as this Court has noted, "courts should not presume futility in an administrative appeal but should assume 'that the administrative process will, if given a chance, discover and correct its own errors.'" Greenbriar, supra at 562, quoting Canonsburg Gen Hosp v Dep't of Health, 492 Pa 68, 74; 422 A2d 141 (1980).
Our Supreme Court has stated "administrative law dictates that courts move very cautiously when called upon to interfere with the assumption of jurisdiction by an administrative agency." Judges, supra at 727. This restraint is due, for the most part, because of the separation of powers. Id. From this, and other considerations, "emanates the doctrine of exhaustion, by which courts have declined to act in contravention of administrative agencies where the remedies available through administrative channels have not been pursued to completion." Id. at 728.
The purpose of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the "futility" exception thereto, is found in International Business Machines Corp v Dep't of Treasury, 75 Mich App 604, 610; 255 NW2d 702 (1977):
Exhaustion of administrative remedies serves several policies: (1) an untimely resort to the courts may result in delay and disruption of an otherwise cohesive administrative scheme; (2) judicial review is best made upon a full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CCSG v. Attorney General
...620 N.W.2d 546243 Mich. App. 43CITIZENS FOR COMMON SENSE IN GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, ... ATTORNEY ... Docket No. 228936 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan ... Submitted September ... Plaintiff, Citizens for Common Sense in Government, is a ballot question ... ...