Sheffield v. Detroit City Clerk
| Decision Date | 03 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 357298, No. 357299 |
| Citation | 337 Mich.App. 492,976 N.W.2d 95 |
| Parties | Horace SHEFFIELD III and Rodrick Harbin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DETROIT CITY CLERK and Detroit Election Commission, Defendants, and Detroit Charter Revision Commission, Intervening Defendant-Appellant. Allen A. Lewis and Ingrid D. White, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Detroit City Clerk and Detroit Election Commission, Defendants, and Detroit Charter Revision Commission, Intervening Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Honigman, LLP (by Mark A. Burton, Lansing and Andrew M. Pauwels, Detroit) for plaintiffs.
Varnum, LLP (by Aaron M. Phelps, Kyle P. Konwinski, Regan A. Gibson, Grand Rapids, and Jailah D. Emerson) and Lamont D. Satchel for the Detroit Charter Revision Commission.
Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice (by John C. Philo, Detroit and Tonya Myers Phillips) for legal scholars, Amici Curiae.
Before: Cameron, P.J., and Karen M. Fort Hood and Letica, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, intervening defendant-appellant, the Detroit Charter Revision Commission, appeals as of right the trial court's opinion and order granting mandamus relief to plaintiffs and compelling defendants, the Detroit City Clerk and the Detroit Election Commission, to remove Proposal P from the ballot for the upcoming primary election.1 We affirm.
In 2018, Detroit voters approved a ballot proposal to create a Charter Review Commission to consider revising the 2012 Detroit City Charter, and they subsequently elected the original nine members of the Detroit Charter Revision Commission (DCRC). The DCRC started meeting in November 2018 and, on March 5, 2021, presented its proposed revised charter to the Governor for review under MCL 117.22. Following an expedited review assisted by the Attorney General, the Governor informed the DCRC in writing on April 30, 2021, that "the current draft has substantial and extensive legal deficiencies" and that given those defects, she did not approve the proposed revised charter. The Governor notified the DCRC of her objections and included the Attorney General review explaining the legal deficiencies in detail. The DCRC made some revisions based on the Governor's objections but did not submit the new draft of the proposed revised charter to the Governor for approval.
On May 6, 2021, the DCRC resolved to submit adoption of the proposed revised charter to the voters designated as Proposal P, which read "Shall the City of Detroit Home Rule Charter proposed by the Detroit Charter Revision Commission be adopted? " The DCRC then submitted Proposal P to the Detroit City Clerk, who twice refused to place it on the ballot because "Section 22 of the HRCA (Home Rule City Act) does not contemplate a path to the ballot for any commission proposed revision that does not have the Governor's approval." Despite that rejection, on May 11, 2021, the deadline for placing Proposal P on the ballot, the Detroit Election Commission voted to place the proposal on the ballot. Two days after the deadline, on May 13, 2021, the DCRC submitted the new draft of the proposed revised charter to the Governor for approval. The Governor declined to conduct further review, pointing out that this new version of the proposed revised charter was presented to her after her prior disapproval—and after the May 11, 2021 deadline to submit ballot wording to the Detroit City Clerk under MCL 168.646a(2).
In two complaints filed the same day, plaintiffs sued defendants for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, arguing that because the proposed revised charter had not been approved by the Governor as required by MCL 117.22, it could not be placed on the ballot for voter approval. Plaintiffs argued that since the deadline for placing approval of the proposed revised charter on the August 3, 2021 primary ballot had passed, the DCRC could not put Proposal P on the ballot even if it were to obtain the Governor's approval of its latest version of the proposed revised charter. Thus, plaintiffs argued that Proposal P must be stricken from the ballot.
The trial court granted the DCRC's motion to intervene, held two hearings on the matter, and issued a written opinion and order that granted plaintiffs the requested mandamus relief. The court explained that "[a] writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will only issue if 1) the party seeking the writ has a clear legal right to the performance of the duties sought to be compelled 2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform the act requested 3) the act is ministerial, that is it does not involve discretion of judgment and 4) no other legal or equitable remedy exists that might achieve the same result." The main question before the trial court was whether defendants improperly authorized placement of Proposal P on the ballot for the upcoming primary. The court rejected the DCRC's argument that the Michigan Constitution allowed it to present a charter revision to Detroit voters without the Governor's approval, noting that while Const. 1963, art. 7, § 22 gave city electors the power to adopt and amend their charters, the same section stated that those powers were "subject to the constitution and law." That is, while § 22 gave home-rule cities full power over their property and government, the court found that they still had to abide by statutes and caselaw. Citing Northrup v. City of Jackson , 273 Mich. 20, 26, 262 N.W. 641 (1935), the court noted that since at least 1935, home-rule cities had to obtain the Governor's approval of a charter provision before it could be enacted into law. Under MCL 117.22, which is a provision of the HRCA, MCL 117.1 et seq. , a revised city charter must have the Governor's approval before it can be presented to the voters. The HRCA and caselaw distinguish between charter revisions—which involve major changes—and charter amendments that involve fewer substantive changes. The trial court concluded that while MCL 117.22 contained language providing for a means to submit an amendment to the voters despite the Governor's rejection, "MCL 117.22 does not provide for a mechanism whereby a revision of the Charter can be submitted to the voters without the approval of the Governor." (Emphasis added.)
The trial court rejected the DCRC's argument that it could continually revise the content of the proposed revised charter beyond the filing deadline, finding that position untenable because "absentee voters could vote on a proposed revision containing one version and voters who went to the poll on August 3, 2021 would be voting on a different substantive proposed revision to the Detroit City Charter." The court determined that "[n]o Michigan law authorizes such power to a Charter Revision Commission" and "that plaintiffs have a clear legal right to performance of the duty sought to be compelled." MCL 117.23 requires the language of the proposed charter revision to be published before the election so the voters can examine the proposed revision before they vote. The DCRC had two versions of the proposed revised charter, and it had not provided the voting public with a clear understanding of which proposed charter revision they were being asked to approve. The court concluded that "[i]rreparable harm will come to the voters of Detroit if they do not have sufficient time to review the proposed Charter revision or know which version they are being asked to review." The trial court concluded that because the DCRC's proposed revised charter had not been approved by the Governor under MCL 117.22, it could not properly be placed on the ballot and submitted to the voters at the August 3, 2021 primary.
The court concluded that plaintiffs had a clear legal right to have the Detroit City Clerk and the Detroit Election Commission comply with the requirements of MCL 117.22, that the clerk and the commission had a clear legal duty not to place Proposal P on the ballot, and that it was a ministerial act for them to refuse to submit Proposal P for placement on the ballot for the upcoming primary. The court granted plaintiffs’ petition for mandamus and ordered the Detroit City Clerk and the Detroit Election Commission to remove Proposal P from the August 3, 2021 ballot. Because the court was granting mandamus relief, it declined to address plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief or the Detroit City Clerk's motion for summary disposition.
The DCRC asserts that the trial court erred by granting plaintiffs the requested mandamus relief, raising the following arguments: (1) that the city has the constitutional power to place the charter to a popular vote; (2) that MCL 117.22 allows it to present the proposed revised charter to the voters for approval regardless of the Governor's rejection of the proposed charter revision; (3) that the proposed charter revision did not need to be complete before its approval was placed on the ballot by Proposal P; (4) that the trial court had no basis to enter a final judgment granting mandamus relief; (5) that removal of Proposal P from the ballot was not a ministerial act; (6) that the trial court correctly denied injunctive relief; and (7) that the substance of the revised charter cannot be at issue. We find no errors of legal interpretation or abuse of discretion and so affirm the trial court.
A trial court's decision whether to grant mandamus relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Berry v. Garrett, 316 Mich. App. 37, 41, 890 N.W.2d 882 (2016). Whether a plaintiff has a clear legal right to performance of a duty and whether the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform present questions of law that are reviewed de novo. Id. Questions of constitutional and statutory interpretation also present issues of law that are reviewed de novo. Makowski v. Governor , 495 Mich. 465, 470, 852 N.W.2d 61 (2014).
To continue reading
Request your trial