By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
A signature gatherer’s failure to indicate their residence on petitions for a ballot referendum, in the context of challenging a zoning ordinance, is not one of four exceptions noted by the Legislature and is an error that cannot be excused, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel ruled last Thursday.
In a published opinion released last Friday, written by Judge Noah Hood and joined by Judge Michael Riordan and Judge Michelle Rick, the panel in Wickman v. Norway Township Clerk (COA Docket No. 367743) found that Michigan Election Law and the Michigan Zoning and Enabling Act, while cross referencing one another, require the identity of a signature gatherer’s city or township residence.
The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, as the panel found no error when the case was decided in favor of the township.
Wickman centered around the formal requirements for petition signature gatherers under Election Law, specifically a provision for a signature gatherer to identify their city or township of residence.
The plaintiff appealed the Dickinson Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition to the Norway Township Clerk and Norway Township Board. The trial court reasoned that the claim was unenforceable as a matter of law and that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
His complaint for mandamus relief and a preliminary injunction was dismissed. The plaintiff initially sought to compel the township board to put a referendum on the ballot regarding a zoning ordinance the township passed despite the fact that he and other signature gatherers failed to identify their city and township or of residence.
In the opinion released Friday affirming the lower court, Hood wrote that the panel found no error with the trial court’s decision to deny mandamus relief.
The case at its heart involved the relationship between the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and Election Law, as the former requires the enactment of a zoning ordinance to comply with the latter, Hood wrote. A key procedure for challenging a zoning ordinance is by a petition for ballot referendum. To that end, the election statute, as incorporated into the MZEA, provides for the requirements for a valid petition in cross-referenced sections.
Only a few apply to referendums, but Hood wrote that providing the identity of a gatherer’s city or township of residence is one of them.
“Wickman argues that the trial court erred by applying what he describes as the ‘judicial doctrine of strict compliance’ to his petition. Put differently, Wickman argues that the trial court erred by applying the statute as written. We disagree,” Hood wrote. “The trial court correctly concluded that the mandatory language in these cross-referenced statutory provisions imposed requirements and left no room for ‘substantial compliance.’”
The panel also found the petition sheets did not comply with election law when looking at whether they strictly complied.
“The statute explicitly provides four exceptions when missing or incorrect information in these fields on the circulator’s certification will not affect the validity of the circulator’s signature: a failure to print a name, a failure to print a name in the correct location, a failure to enter a zip code, and the entry of an incorrect zip code,” Hood wrote. “It does not include failure to enter a township or city. Because the Legislature included a list of exceptions, and that list does not include any exceptions regarding the circulator’s city or township, we presume that the omission was intentional.”
Gongwer News Service
A signature gatherer’s failure to indicate their residence on petitions for a ballot referendum, in the context of challenging a zoning ordinance, is not one of four exceptions noted by the Legislature and is an error that cannot be excused, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel ruled last Thursday.
In a published opinion released last Friday, written by Judge Noah Hood and joined by Judge Michael Riordan and Judge Michelle Rick, the panel in Wickman v. Norway Township Clerk (COA Docket No. 367743) found that Michigan Election Law and the Michigan Zoning and Enabling Act, while cross referencing one another, require the identity of a signature gatherer’s city or township residence.
The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, as the panel found no error when the case was decided in favor of the township.
Wickman centered around the formal requirements for petition signature gatherers under Election Law, specifically a provision for a signature gatherer to identify their city or township of residence.
The plaintiff appealed the Dickinson Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition to the Norway Township Clerk and Norway Township Board. The trial court reasoned that the claim was unenforceable as a matter of law and that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
His complaint for mandamus relief and a preliminary injunction was dismissed. The plaintiff initially sought to compel the township board to put a referendum on the ballot regarding a zoning ordinance the township passed despite the fact that he and other signature gatherers failed to identify their city and township or of residence.
In the opinion released Friday affirming the lower court, Hood wrote that the panel found no error with the trial court’s decision to deny mandamus relief.
The case at its heart involved the relationship between the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and Election Law, as the former requires the enactment of a zoning ordinance to comply with the latter, Hood wrote. A key procedure for challenging a zoning ordinance is by a petition for ballot referendum. To that end, the election statute, as incorporated into the MZEA, provides for the requirements for a valid petition in cross-referenced sections.
Only a few apply to referendums, but Hood wrote that providing the identity of a gatherer’s city or township of residence is one of them.
“Wickman argues that the trial court erred by applying what he describes as the ‘judicial doctrine of strict compliance’ to his petition. Put differently, Wickman argues that the trial court erred by applying the statute as written. We disagree,” Hood wrote. “The trial court correctly concluded that the mandatory language in these cross-referenced statutory provisions imposed requirements and left no room for ‘substantial compliance.’”
The panel also found the petition sheets did not comply with election law when looking at whether they strictly complied.
“The statute explicitly provides four exceptions when missing or incorrect information in these fields on the circulator’s certification will not affect the validity of the circulator’s signature: a failure to print a name, a failure to print a name in the correct location, a failure to enter a zip code, and the entry of an incorrect zip code,” Hood wrote. “It does not include failure to enter a township or city. Because the Legislature included a list of exceptions, and that list does not include any exceptions regarding the circulator’s city or township, we presume that the omission was intentional.”
