Civil Rts. Initiative v. Bd. of Canvassers, Docket No. 264204.
| Decision Date | 06 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 264204. |
| Citation | 268 Mich. App. 506,708 N.W.2d 139 |
| Parties | MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, Defendant, and Carl Williams, Hassan Aleem, and Percy Harris, Jr., Intervenors, and Operation King's Dream, Exie Chester-Griffin, Roosevelt T. Briston, Lillian A. Cummings, Nicole McCoy, Alicia Rose Spencer, Cheryl Thompson, Leslie Atzmon, Monica Smith, Maricruz Lopez, Kate Stenvig, Liana Mulholland, Alishia Steward, Joseph Johnson, Johnathan Crutcher, Turquoise Wise-King, Deneshea Richey, Ivan Adams, Rhiannon Chester, and Curtis Ray, Intervenors. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Heather S. Meingast and Patrick O'Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Board of State Canvassers.
Carl Williams, Detroit, in propria persona.
Hassan Aleem, Detroit, in propria persona.
Percy Harris, Jr., Royal Oak, in propria persona.
Scheff & Washington, P.C. (by Miranda K.S. Massie, Shanta Driver, and George B. Washington), Detroit, for Operation King's Dream and others.
Before: SAAD, P.J., and CAVANAGH and JANSEN, JJ.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) complaint for mandamus asks this Court to direct the Board of State Canvassers to certify initiative petitions for placement on the November 2006 ballot. MCRI needed 317,757 signatures to qualify for the ballot and obtained and submitted 508,202 signatures. In 2003, the identical petitions in issue were approved by the board for form and language. But, thereafter, the circuit court held that the form did not comply with MCL 168.482(3). On appeal, a panel of our Court expedited the appeal, held that the circuit court erred, reversed the circuit court's order, found that the form of the petition complied with the statute, and directed the board to reinstate its earlier approval. Rather than attempt to place the petition on the ballot for the 2004 election, MCRI instead circulated new petitions, with identical language, for placement on the November 2006 ballot. The board has neither approved nor rejected the current petitions because the board failed to reach consensus regarding the recent allegations that the signatures were procured fraudulently. The board failed to reach agreement on whether the board has the authority to investigate these challenges. MCRI says the board lacks the authority to investigate these allegations, and, because we agree, we hereby grant the petition for mandamus and contemporaneous with this opinion issue an order for mandamus.
The initiative petition in issue seeks to amend the Michigan Constitution by adding a new § 25 to Article 1, and, as stated above, was the subject of a prior appeal in this Court, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 262 Mich.App. 395, 686 N.W.2d 287 (2004). The proposed amendment provides:
Civil Rights.
(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.
(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(3) For the purposes of this section "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.
(4) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(6) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan's anti-discrimination law.
(7) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
(8) This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of this section.
(9) This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section. [Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, supra at 398-399, 686 N.W.2d 287.]
After MCRI filed the petition in 2003, the board conducted a public hearing on December 11, 2003, to determine whether the form of the petition met the requirements of the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.1 et seq. Two organizations, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and the Citizens for a United Michigan (CFUM), opposed the petition and claimed that the proposed language of the petition violated MCL 168.482(3), which requires that a petition state whether it would alter or abrogate an existing provision of the Constitution and include the text of the constitutional provision that would be changed or eliminated by the proposal. These organizations also objected to the inclusion, content, and placement of summaries of the proposal on the petition. After the hearing, the board voted to approve the petition. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, supra at 399-400, 686 N.W.2d 287. BAMN and CFUM filed separate actions for mandamus against the board in the Ingham Circuit Court, again challenging the form of the petition. After ruling that the petition form failed to conform to MCL 168.482(3), the circuit court granted an order of mandamus, directing the board to rescind its approval. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, supra at 400, 686 N.W.2d 287. The board then filed claims of appeal from both cases, and in turn, this Court expedited the appeal, and issued a published opinion that reversed the circuit court's ruling that the petition did not comply with MCL 168.482(3). Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, supra at 401-404, 686 N.W.2d 287. Specifically, this Court held that the proposed amendment did not "add to, delete from or change the existing wording of" Article 1, § 2, because the current language of that provision was unaffected by the amendment and the amendment did not render the provision "wholly inoperative." Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, supra at 402, 686 N.W.2d 287. Accordingly, this Court ruled that the circuit court erred in granting mandamus relief and directed the board to reinstate its approval of the form of the petition. Id. at 407, 686 N.W.2d 287.
Apparently because of timing issues, MCRI chose not to pursue reinstatement of the petition for placement on the ballot in 2004, but, instead, circulated new petitions for placement of the proposal on the November 2006 general election ballot. On January 6, 2005, MCRI filed approximately 508,202 signatures in support of its initiative petition. The Secretary of State staff reviewed the petition, which included a random sampling of 500 signatures.
On April 18, 2005, two groups, Operation King's Dream (OKD) and BAMN filed a challenge to the MCRI petition. The challengers accepted the 500 signatures as representative and conducted their own review. They claimed that a significant number of the sampled signatures were procured by MCRI circulators through fraud. Among other claims, the challengers maintained that the petition language was deceptive and that the petition drive was funded by out-of-state interests, which were not properly reported under the Campaign Finance Act, MCL 169.201 et seq. MCRI filed a response to the challenge and pointed out that it submitted 508,202 signatures, whereas in order to qualify for the ballot, only 317,757 valid signatures were needed, and that the petition itself fairly revealed its nature and purpose and was available to be read by any signer of the petition.
On July 13, 2005, the staff review report was issued, which examined the 500 sampled signatures, and found 450 valid signatures and 50 invalid signatures. The report noted that the 50 signatures were discounted because they were facially defective or were rejected on the basis of the signer's registration status, and that although 42 of the 50 invalid signatures were also identified in the challenge, these signatures were not rejected on the basis of the challenge. The report further concluded that the petition was sufficient under the standard procedures traditionally employed to sample petitions.
The board conducted a lengthy hearing on July 19, 2005, at which time the challengers and their witnesses and MCRI and their witnesses made their presentations. Upon conclusion of these presentations, one board member moved that the board, with the assistance of the Bureau of Elections, conduct an investigation and hearings regarding the challenge relating to the allegations of fraud and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Promote the Vote 2022 v. Bd. of State Canvassers
...State Canvassers , ––– Mich. ––––, 978 N.W.2d 854 (September 8, 2022) (Docket No. 164760) ; Mich. Civil Rights Initiative v Bd. of State Canvassers , 268 Mich. App 506, 520, 708 N.W.2d 139 (2005) ("Because there is no dispute that the form of the petition is proper or that there are suffici......
-
Promote The Vote 2022 v. Bd. of State Canvassers
... ... Canvassers , __Mich __(September 8, 2022) (Docket No ... 164760); Mich Civil Rights Initiative v Bd ... ...
-
Operation King's Dream v. Connerly
...number of the sampled signatures were procured by MCRI circulators through fraud." Mich. Civil Rights Initiative v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 268 Mich.App. 506, 708 N.W.2d 139, 142 (2005). Specifically, Operation King's Dream and BAMN allege that the MCRI signature gatherers deceived signers......
-
Unlock Mich. v. Bd. of State Canvassers
...is clearly beyond the scope of the board's authority set forth under MCL 168.476(1)." Michigan Civil Rights Initiative v. Bd. of State Canvassers , 268 Mich. App. 506, 519-520, 708 N.W.2d 139 (2005).In the present case, the Board approved the form and content of the petition in July 2020. T......
-
Election fraud and the initiative process: a study of the 2006 Michigan civil rights initiative.
...or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section. Mich. Civil Rights Initiative v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 708 N.W.2d 139, 141 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration, & Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAM......