Bureau of Elections recommended invalidating all plaintiff’s petitions
By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
Hugh Woodrow, a candidate for a judgeship on the 54th Circuit Court in Tuscola County, will not appear on the November general election ballot, the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Thursday.
In an unpublished per curiam opinion released Friday, the panel in Woodrow v. Board of State Canvassers (COA Docket No. 371344) said the plaintiff asked the court to disregard a crucial requirement for signature petitions in election law, which was out of step with precedents from the court on candidates on the accuracy of forms and petitions submitted to the Canvassers.
Woodrow was a candidate for the August 6 primary as a non-incumbent candidate and was required to file nominating signature petitions with the Department of State. The petitions, however, erroneously indicated the election was November 5 – the general election date – and not the August 6 primary.
Following a challenge, the Bureau of Elections recommended invalidating all the plaintiff’s petitions, as a staff report concluded that all the sheets suffered from the same error.
The Board of State Canvassers heard the challenge, and the plaintiff argued that there was no primary election for the office he was seeking due to an insufficient number of candidates, hence why he listed the general election date.
The bureau disagreed, arguing that it was required to list the primary date, and the board voted to invalidate the petition, in line with the staff report.
Woodrow next took his arguments to the Court of Appeals, but the panel of Judge Stephen Borrello, Judge Michael Kelly and Judge Michelle Rick found that he committed a fatal error by listing the wrong date.
“While plaintiff is correct about the absence of a primary election for this specific race, his arguments regarding his failure to place the primary date on his petition sheets are inaccurate,” the panel ruled. “MCL 168.412 clearly states that the decision on the necessity of a primary election is to be made ‘upon the expiration of the time for filing petitions or incumbency affidavits of candidacy.’ The plaintiff was not empowered to declare that a primary election would not be required. It would have been impossible for him to know, while collecting signatures, whether there would be a primary.”
The panel also said the statute unequivocally assigns that determination to the board after the filing of nominating petitions and certification by the Department of State.
“The plaintiff’s attempt to preempt the need for a primary and his choice to omit the primary date from his petition sheets directly contradicts the explicit language of the relevant statutes,” the panel said.
“Hence, the plaintiff is asking this court to disregard a crucial requirement, which is not in line with prior precedents of this court.”
Gongwer News Service
Hugh Woodrow, a candidate for a judgeship on the 54th Circuit Court in Tuscola County, will not appear on the November general election ballot, the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Thursday.
In an unpublished per curiam opinion released Friday, the panel in Woodrow v. Board of State Canvassers (COA Docket No. 371344) said the plaintiff asked the court to disregard a crucial requirement for signature petitions in election law, which was out of step with precedents from the court on candidates on the accuracy of forms and petitions submitted to the Canvassers.
Woodrow was a candidate for the August 6 primary as a non-incumbent candidate and was required to file nominating signature petitions with the Department of State. The petitions, however, erroneously indicated the election was November 5 – the general election date – and not the August 6 primary.
Following a challenge, the Bureau of Elections recommended invalidating all the plaintiff’s petitions, as a staff report concluded that all the sheets suffered from the same error.
The Board of State Canvassers heard the challenge, and the plaintiff argued that there was no primary election for the office he was seeking due to an insufficient number of candidates, hence why he listed the general election date.
The bureau disagreed, arguing that it was required to list the primary date, and the board voted to invalidate the petition, in line with the staff report.
Woodrow next took his arguments to the Court of Appeals, but the panel of Judge Stephen Borrello, Judge Michael Kelly and Judge Michelle Rick found that he committed a fatal error by listing the wrong date.
“While plaintiff is correct about the absence of a primary election for this specific race, his arguments regarding his failure to place the primary date on his petition sheets are inaccurate,” the panel ruled. “MCL 168.412 clearly states that the decision on the necessity of a primary election is to be made ‘upon the expiration of the time for filing petitions or incumbency affidavits of candidacy.’ The plaintiff was not empowered to declare that a primary election would not be required. It would have been impossible for him to know, while collecting signatures, whether there would be a primary.”
The panel also said the statute unequivocally assigns that determination to the board after the filing of nominating petitions and certification by the Department of State.
“The plaintiff’s attempt to preempt the need for a primary and his choice to omit the primary date from his petition sheets directly contradicts the explicit language of the relevant statutes,” the panel said.
“Hence, the plaintiff is asking this court to disregard a crucial requirement, which is not in line with prior precedents of this court.”
