MSC: Republican Party Can Pursue Election Inspector Claims Against City Of Flint

The Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee have standing to sue City of Flint officials for not appointing enough inspectors during the 2022 election, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The high court’s order in Michigan Republican Party, et al. v Donahue, et al. (Docket No. 166973) reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case to the Genesee County Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs are the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee, while the defendants are Flint City Clerk Davina Donahue, former Flint City Attorney William Kim and Flint City Assessor Stacie Kaake. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants violated Michigan election law because they did not appoint “as nearly as possible” the same amount of election inspectors from each major party in the 2022 primary and general elections.

In March 2024, a 2-1 Court of Appeals (Docket No. 364048) affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims based on a lack of standing. Court of Appeals Judge Kathleen Jansen dissented from the majority opinion, saying the plaintiffs had standing under the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.1, et seq. The plaintiffs appealed the majority’s decision.

The Michigan Supreme Court, instead of granting leave to appeal, issued an order reversing the Court of Appeals ruling.

“The significant role played by the major political parties in this area of election law supports the conclusion that they have a unique interest, distinct from the general public, in asserting a challenge if a board of election commissioners did not ‘appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors … from each major political party,’ MCL 168.674(2) (emphasis added), since plaintiffs, through their county chair, can submit a list of individuals for appointment,” the Michigan Supreme Court said in its order. “There can be no doubt that the major political parties themselves have a sufficient interest in ensuring parity among appointed election inspectors to ‘ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy’ of the issue.”

Therefore, “[b]ecause we conclude that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the partisan parity of election inspectors under MCL 168.674(2), plaintiffs are entitled to proceed with their claims in the trial court,” the high court held.

Justices Brian K. Zahra, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth M. Welch, Kyra H. Bolden and Kimberly A. Thomas joined the high court’s order. Chief Justice Megan K. Cavanagh indicated that she would have denied leave to appeal. Justice Noah P. Hood did not participate because the case was considered before he took office.

Case Law & Statutes

The Michigan Supreme Court explained the central issue was whether the plaintiffs “have standing to pursue claims for declaratory relief and writ of mandamus under MCL 168.674(2) for alleged failures by election officials to ensure partisan parity among the election inspectors in Flint during the 2022 election.”

The plaintiffs primarily argued they had standing under Lansing Schools Education Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Education, 487 Mich 349 (2010), and that the lower courts misapplied case precedent. The plaintiffs also claimed they were not attempting to relitigate the 2022 election but instead asserted that standards need to be established for parity in partisan election inspectors to prevent similar dilemmas from happening in the future.

In its order, the Michigan Supreme Court consistently referenced its decision in Lansing Schools Education Ass’n and observed that standing jurisprudence “reflects a ‘limited, prudential doctrine’” and the doctrine’s purpose “is to assess whether a litigant’s interest in the issue is sufficient to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy.” Therefore, the “proper focus” is “whether a litigant is a proper party to request adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable.”

Quoting Lansing Schools Education Ass’n, the justices stated: “[A] litigant has standing whenever there is a legal cause of action. Further, whenever a litigant meets the requirements of MCR 2.605, it is sufficient to establish standing to seek a declaratory judgment. Where a cause of action is not provided at law, then a court should, in its discretion, determine whether a litigant has standing. A litigant may have standing in this context if the litigant has a special injury or right, or substantial interest, that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large or if the statutory scheme implies that the Legislature intended to confer standing on the litigant.”

The Michigan Supreme Court also examined MCL 168.674. Relevant to this appeal, that statute says: “(1) … The board of election commissioners may appoint as election inspector an individual on the list submitted by a major political party under [MCL 168.673a] who is qualified to serve under [MCL 168.677]. … (2) … The board of election commissioners shall appoint at least 1 election inspector from each major political party and shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party.”

‘Ample Support’

“There is ample support for the conclusion that plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claim through their ‘special injury or right, or substantial interest, that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large,’” the Michigan Supreme Court wrote.

According to the high court, “in MCL 168.673a, the Legislature gave the county chair of each major political party the authority to submit a list of individuals interested in serving as election inspectors, and in MCL 168.674(1), the Legislature gave each city or township board of election commissioners the authority to make election inspector appointments from the ‘list submitted by a major political party under [MCL 168.673a].’ MCL 168.674(1) at a minimum implies that the list is the list of a major political party. Neither MCL 168.674 nor MCL 168.765a provides an explicit right to any individual or entity to challenge the election inspector parity requirement. But as [Court of Appeals] Judge [Kathleen Jansen] observed in her dissenting opinion …, if the Court of Appeals majority’s reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion, then it is possible that no one, including the county chairs of major political parties, would have authority to challenge the parity requirement under MCL 168.674 or MCL 168.765a.”

Further, “given the role of major political parties, such as plaintiff, in the electoral process through their affiliated inspectors and under Michigan’s election laws, these parties have a unique interest in ensuring the fair and equal treatment of party-affiliated candidates during voting and the counting of ballots, which is fulfilled through party-affiliated election inspectors,” the justices wrote. “As mentioned, the role of major political parties in the electoral process, for example, includes the right to submit, through the county chair, the names of individuals whom the board of election commissioners may appoint to serve as election inspectors. MCL 168.673a; MCL 168.674(1) and (2). Through these provisions, the Legislature has ensured that the major political parties have a role in suggesting who may be appointed to serve as election inspectors –a special right and substantial interest in ensuring that the electoral process meets the partisan parity mandate articulated in MCL 168.674(2).”

Accordingly, “we reverse both the decision of the Genesee Circuit Court and the decision of the Court of Appeals to the contrary,” the Michigan Supreme Court said. “We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings ….”