Scott v. Mich. Dir. of Elections

• Citation: 490 Mich. 888,804 N.W.2d 119
• Decision Date: 20 October 2011
• Docket Number: Docket No. 143878.COA No. 306155.
• Parties: Paul H. SCOTT, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.MICHIGAN DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, and Genesee County Director of Elections, Defendants,andGary Carnahan, Intervening Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

490 Mich. 888
804 N.W.2d 119

Paul H. SCOTT, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
MICHIGAN DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, and Genesee County Director of Elections, Defendants,andGary Carnahan, Intervening Defendant–Appellant.

Docket No. 143878.COA No. 306155.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 20, 2011.

Order

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the order of the Court of Appeals, and we REINSTATE the September 16, 2011 order of the Ingham Circuit Court that denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. It is not clear that plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits. See

[804 N.W.2d 120]

Detroit Fire Fighters Assn. v. Detroit, 482 Mich. 18, 34, 753 N.W.2d 579 (2008). The motion for stay is DENIED as moot.

In a different election controversy 40 years ago, this Court recognized the practical problems that can arise when legal issues are brought to the appellate courts too close to the election day. In an effort to achieve “better timing of appeals to the judicial process,” this Court suggested that appellate review of election-related legal issues would be facilitated if the party seeking review filed its papers “ in this Court,” despite the absence of an explicit rule authorizing the same. Carman v. Secretary of State, 384 Mich. 443, 449, 185 N.W.2d 1 (1971). In this regard, MCR 7.302(C)(1)(b) now authorizes the filing of an application for leave to appeal in this Court prior to a decision by the Court of Appeals after an application for leave to appeal has been filed in the Court of Appeals. We encourage future litigants in election disputes to avail themselves of this provision, where appropriate.

We further note that the October 6, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals, and the manner in which that court treated that order, unfortunately created confusion and uncertainty for the parties, the Ingham Circuit Court, and the public. The order is ambiguous as to whether the Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction. It appears to resolve the only issue before that court by reversing the circuit court order denying a preliminary injunction, and yet it refers to granting the application, but does so without guidance to the parties as to how to...