# Rosa Holliday v. Secretary of State

> Michigan Court of Appeals · August 30, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10566824

## Case

- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 30, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10566824

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that states “retain the power to regulate state and local elections, subject to federal constitutional and statutory limitations”

## Opinion text

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ROSA HOLLIDAY, FOR PUBLICATION
August 30, 2024
Plaintiff-Appellant, 9:00 a.m.

v No. 372241
Court of Claims
SECRETARY OF STATE, LC No. 24-000122-MZ

Defendant-Appellee.

CORNEL WEST FOR PRESIDENT 2024,
CORNEL WEST, MELINA ABDULLAH,
THOMAS HEIBEL, and MARIO NADHUM,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v No. 372255
Court of Claims
SECRETARY OF STATE, LC No. 24-000134-MB

Defendant-Appellant,
and

BUREAU OF ELECTIONS DIRECTOR,

Defendant.

MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY and
LAVORA BARNES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v No. 372256
Court of Claims

-1-
SECRETARY OF STATE and BUREAU OF LC No. 24-000115-MB
ELECTIONS DIRECTOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: N. P. HOOD, P.J., and LETICA and YOUNG, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals,1 various parties challenge the August 24, 2024 order of the
Court of Claims which rejected challenges to the placement of Cornel West and Melina Abdullah
on the November general election ballot as independent candidates for the offices of President and
Vice President of the United States. Finding no errors warranting relief, we affirm.

I. FACTS

The Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.1 et seq., allows those who seek to run for the office
of President of the United States without party affiliation to do so by submitting a “qualifying
petition” containing a sufficient number of valid signatures (at least 12,000) to the Secretary of
State by 4:00 p.m., 110 days prior to the general election. See MCL 168.590a, MCL 168.590b,
and MCL 168.590c; Graveline v Benson, 992 F3d 524 (CA 6, 2021). Cornel West and Melina
Abdullah, who are seeking the offices of President and Vice President respectively, filed affidavits
of identity (AOIs) and qualifying petitions with the Secretary of State on June 17, 2024, so they
may obtain ballot access in Michigan as independent candidates.

On July 23, 2024, Rosa Holliday filed a challenge with the Bureau of Elections. Holliday
contended that the AOIs filed by West and Abdullah were defective and that MCL 168.692a
prohibited them from running as independent candidates in Michigan where West and Abdullah
are seeking election to the same offices in other states, but as affiliated candidates with various
political parties. The Bureau of Elections notified West of the challenge via e-mail on July 26,
2024, and stated that any response was due by August 2, 2024. No response was submitted by
West or his campaign.

While that challenge was being reviewed by the Bureau of Elections, the Michigan
Democratic Party (MDP) filed the first of the three lawsuits involved in this appeal, Case No. 24-
000115-MB, in the Court of Claims. This suit was filed on August 6, 2024. The MDP sought an
order disqualifying West and Abdullah from the November ballot. On August 12, 2024, which
was also before the Bureau of Elections had reached a decision on Holliday’s challenge, Holliday
filed suit in the Court of Claims, which became Case No. 24-000122-MZ. Holliday similarly
requested an order disqualifying West and Abdullah from appearing on the November ballot.

1
Holliday v Secretary of State, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 27,
2024 (Docket Nos. 372241, 372255, and 372256).

-2-
On August 16, 2024, the Director of Elections, Jonathan Brater, informed West and
Abdullah that the notarization of West’s AOI was not executed in conformity with Colorado’s
Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (RULONA), Colo Rev Stat, §§ 24-21-501 et seq. Before
issuing the decision, the Director consulted with the Colorado Secretary of State, who reviewed
West’s AOI and concluded that the notarization did not comply with Colorado law. The Director
identified four violations of Colorado law: (1) the AOI was notarized despite the fact that the
document contained unfilled blanks in violation of Colo Rev Stat, § 24-21-525(7); (2) the notary
certificate did not identify what notarial act was being performed in violation of Colo Rev Stat,
§ 24-21-516(1); (3) the notary certificate did not include the notary public’s title of office in
violation of Colo Rev Stat, § 24-21-516(1); and (4) the notary public’s stamp was placed on a
separate sheet of paper and not included with the notary public’s certificate in violation of Colo
Rev Stat, § 24-21-516(1). The Director further explained that, under Michigan law, strict
compliance was the standard, and because the AOI was not notarized in strict compliance with the
laws of Colorado (the state where it was notarized), MCL 168.558(4) required that West be
disqualified from appearing on the ballot. Moreover, because only a presidential candidate may
file to have a vice-presidential candidate listed as candidate for vice president, see MCL 168.590d,
this meant that Abdullah was likewise disqualified. The Director declined to consider the other
challenges made by Holliday in light of that conclusion. The letter gave West five days to respond
to the determination if he wished to do so.

When the Director issued this determination, no response to Holliday’s challenge had been
received from anyone associated with West or his campaign. Subsequently, on August 19, 2024,
West and Abdullah filed notices that they wished to intervene in the two pending Court of Claims
matters. On August 20, 2024, the two pending cases in the Court of Claims were consolidated,
with the Holliday case being reassigned to the same Court of Claims Judge before whom the MDP
case was pending. After a status conference held on August 21, 2024, arguments were set for
August 23, 2024, on the two pending cases. The court also directed that any candidate wishing to
intervene file a complaint in the Court of Claims by 3:00 p.m. that afternoon. West and Abdullah,
along with other plaintiffs, then filed their complaint, seeking declaratory and mandamus relief
against the Secretary of State and compelling their inclusion on the ballot. This suit, Case No. 24-
000134-MB, was consolidated with the MDP and Holliday matters.2

The Court of Claims held a hearing on August 23, 2024, which combined oral argument
on all three cases. On August 24, 2024, the Court of Claims issued the opinion and order
challenged in these appeals. While all parties accused others of delays resulting in prejudice, the
Court of Claims declined to apply the doctrine of laches to bar any of the suits. The Court of
Claims then held that West and Abdullah, as candidates for the offices of President and Vice
President of the United States, were not required to file AOIs under the language of MCL
168.558(1). That rendered any defects in the AOIs irrelevant. As a result, the court denied the
requests for mandamus relief, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief sought by the MDP and
Holliday.

2
West also filed a motion seeking leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the MDP and Holliday
matters, which was allowed. Motions to intervene in those matters were denied.

-3-
The court then explained that it would still address the challenges to the AOIs in the event
that an appellate court disagreed with its interpretation of MCL 168.558(1). The court opined that
under Colorado law, the notarization of West’s AOI was “not void or invalid” and “also included
all information required under Michigan’s notary laws.” The court held that West was improperly
disqualified by the Director on that basis. The court then turned to a challenge premised on the
fact that West and Abdullah seek to run as independent candidates in Michigan but are
simultaneously running as candidates affiliated with other parties in a number of other states. The
court held that even accepting that West and Abdullah “are affiliated with these political parties in
each respective state,” that was “insufficient evidence to render either candidate’s respective AOI
invalid.” The court explained that the AOI required West and Abdullah to identify the party
affiliation with which they wished to have appear on Michigan ballots, and that both stated they
were running without any party affiliation. That they were running as affiliated candidates in other
states did not prove that either made a false statement on their AOIs filed in Michigan.

Finally, the court addressed a challenge to Abdullah’s AOI. Abdullah’s AOI stated that
she wished for her name to be printed on the ballot in Michigan as “Cornel West”. The court
described this as an error on the AOI, but held that it would not disqualify West from appearing
on the ballot because under MCL 168.590d(2), West had until August 31, 2024 to file with the
Secretary of State the name and address of his chosen running mate.

At the time the Court of Claims issued its opinion, West and Abdullah had submitted just
shy of 27,000 petition signatures, and a staff report had estimated that about 16,000 of these
signatures were valid. The Court of Claims explained that West and Abdullah were required to
submit at least 12,000 valid signatures. But when the opinion was issued, the Board of State
Canvassers had not yet convened to determine whether a sufficient number of petition signatures
had been submitted.3 Thus, the court’s order denied the requests for relief made by the MDP and
Holliday, but granted the request for a writ of mandamus made by West and Abdullah in their
complaint. The court’s order states that the state defendants “are ordered to qualify West and
Abdullah as independent candidates for the ballot, on the condition that the Board of State
Canvassers does not determine they are disqualified after a review of the signatures on the
qualifying petitions and West complies with MCL 168.590d(2).”4

The present appeals quickly followed. We now turn to the merits of the issues raised.

3
The transcript of the hearing held in the Court of Claims reflects that there had been some
discussion of staying the Court of Claims matters to await a decision from the Board, but that
ultimately the decision was made to move forward with the Court of Claims matters and resolve
them as quickly as possible.
4
The Board of State Canvassers then convened on Monday, August 26, 2024, and considered
whether West and Abdullah submitted enough valid signatures to appear on the November ballot.
In a three-to-one vote, the Board determined that a sufficient number of valid signatures were
submitted. Holliday has recently sought mandamus relief in this Court, challenging the Board’s
decision, in Docket No. 372267. That complaint remains pending in this Court at this time.

-4-
II. ANALYSIS

A. MANDAMUS RELIEF GENERALLY

The Court of Claims granted relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a
discretionary writ, and so this Court reviews the decision whether to grant mandamus relief for an
abuse of discretion. Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37, 41; 890 NW2d 882 (2016).

To obtain the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus, the plaintiff must show
that (1) the plaintiff has a clear, legal right to performance of the specific duty
sought, (2) the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial,
and (4) no other adequate legal or equitable remedy exists that might achieve the
same result. In relation to a request for mandamus, a clear, legal right is one clearly
founded in, or granted by, law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law from
uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal question to be decided.
[Id. (quotation omitted).]

“We review de novo, as questions of law, whether [a] defendant[ has] a clear legal duty to perform
and whether [a] plaintiff has a clear legal right to performance of any such duty.” Id.

B. LACHES

Holliday, the Secretary of State, and the Director5 argue that the Court of Claims erred
when it concluded that the doctrine of laches does not bar West from challenging his
disqualification from the ballot. We disagree.

In Nykoriak v Napoleon, 334 Mich App 370, 382-383; 964 NW2d 895 (2020), another
election matter, this Court explained the doctrine of laches:

As explained in Home-Owners Ins Co v Perkins, 328 Mich App 570, 589;
939 NW2d 705 (2019):

Estoppel by laches is the failure to do something which
should be done under the circumstances or the failure to claim or
enforce a right at a proper time. To successfully assert laches as an
affirmative defense, a defendant must demonstrate prejudice
occasioned by the delay. Typically, [l]aches is an equitable tool
used to provide a remedy for the inconvenience resulting from the
plaintiff’s delay in asserting a legal right that was practicable to
assert. A party guilty of laches is estopped from asserting a right it
could have and should have asserted earlier. [Quotation marks and
citations omitted; alteration in original.]

5
The MDP does not argue in its brief on appeal that laches should bar relief.

-5-
“This doctrine applies to cases in which there is an unexcused or unexplained delay
in commencing an action and a corresponding change of material condition that
results in prejudice to a party.” Wayne Co v Wayne Co Retirement Comm, 267
Mich App 230, 252; 704 NW2d 117 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The doctrine of laches applies in actions in which equitable relief is sought. MCL
600.5815. Moreover, in election cases, MCL 691.1031 creates a rebuttable
presumption of laches:

In all civil actions brought in any circuit court of this state
affecting elections, dates of elections, candidates, qualifications of
candidates, ballots or questions on ballots, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption of laches if the action is commenced less than 28 days
prior to the date of the election affected. This section shall not apply
to actions brought after the date of the affected election.

“This Court . . . reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to apply equitable doctrines such as
laches.” Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 113; 832 NW2d 4439 (2013).

In the present matter, Holliday, the Secretary of State, and the Director generally argue that
West’s failure to respond to the challenge filed with the Secretary of State by Holliday and the
timing of his actions in the Court of Claims should result in the application of laches to bar him
from challenging his disqualification. The parties also chastise the Court of Claims for addressing
the argument in what they believe is conclusory fashion stated in a footnote. That footnote
explained that everyone claimed prejudice resulting from delays by the opposing side. The Court
of Claims noted that MCL 691.1031 creates a rebuttable presumption of laches if an action is
commenced less than 28 days prior to the election. The court then stated that, while ballot
preparation deadlines are looming, “given the time remaining until the general election, the Court
declines to apply the doctrine of laches to preclude the parties’ claims and defenses.” The court’s
reasoning is succinct, but clear: because these matters were all filed well before the point in time
in which a rebuttable presumption of laches would arise by statute, and there was sufficient time
to adjudicate the matters before ballots must be finalized, the court did not believe that applying
the doctrine was appropriate.

We agree with the Court of Claims. Clearly, MCL 691.1031 does not create a rebuttable
presumption of laches in this matter where West’s suit was filed far more than 28 days before the
November election. And as it pertains to West, he filed his suit in the Court of Claims within a
few days of receiving the Director’s letter explaining the basis for disqualifying him from the
ballot. While West may have been wise to respond to Holliday’s challenge before that
determination was made, we do not believe that his failure to do so is a basis on which to refuse to
allow him to challenge that disqualification. West acted with sufficient diligence after the Director
disqualified him.

Nor can we conclude that anyone established prejudice. The Secretary of State and
Director argue that, by failing to respond to Holliday’s challenge, they were left to resolve that
challenge without West having made his position known. But the Director was still able to review
the challenge, discuss the matter with the Colorado Secretary of State, and reach a conclusion.
And, everyone is now well aware of West’s positions on the relevant issues. Perhaps a response

-6-
before August 16, 2024 would have been of some help, but given the Secretary of State and
Director remain unconvinced by West and Abdullah’s arguments (as evidenced by the fact that
they maintain in this Court that West should be disqualified because of alleged deficiencies in the
notarization of his AOI), it seems clear that an answer from West would not have changed the
Director’s decision. It is true that election deadlines are looming, but the parties were still able to
argue the merits of the matter before the Court of Claims, receive a thorough written decision from
the Court of Claims, and seek appellate review in this Court. And with the timing of this Court’s
decision, the parties will also be able to seek review in the Supreme Court if they wish. We thus
decline to hold that laches bars West from obtaining relief.

C. INTERPRETATION OF MCL 168.558(1)

All appellants argue that the Court of Claims erred when it concluded that, under MCL
168.558(1), candidates seeking to run without party affiliation for the offices of President and Vice
President of the United States are not obligated to file an AOI. We agree with the Court of Claims’
resolution of the issue.

This Court reviews the interpretation of a statute de novo on appeal. PNC Nat’l Bank Ass’n
v Dep’t of Treasury, 285 Mich App 504, 505; 778 NW2d 282 (2009). As this Court has explained:

The paramount rule of statutory interpretation is that we are to effect the intent of
the Legislature. To do so, we begin with the statute’s language. If the statute’s
language is clear and unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its
plain meaning, and we enforce the statute as written. In reviewing the statute’s
language, every word should be given meaning, and we should avoid a construction
that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory. [Id. at 506
(quotation omitted).]

Words that are defined by statute are given the meaning ascribed by the Legislature. TRYC v Mich
Veterans’ Facility, 451 Mich 129, 136; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). But words that are not defined by
statute are given their plain and ordinary meaning. In doing so, this Court also considers the
context in which the words are used. PNC Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 285 Mich App at 506.

MCL 168.558 generally explains the process for and requirements of filing an AOI. The
provision at issue, MCL 168.558(1), explains:

When filing a nominating petition, qualifying petition, filing fee, or
affidavit of candidacy for a federal, county, state, city, township, village,
metropolitan district, or school district office in any election, a candidate shall file
with the officer with whom the petitions, fee, or affidavit is filed 2 copies of an
affidavit of identity. A candidate nominated for a federal, state, county, city,
township, or village office at a political party convention or caucus shall file an
affidavit of identity within 1 business day after being nominated with the secretary
of state. The affidavit of identity filing requirement does not apply to a candidate
nominated for the office of President of the United States or Vice President of the
United States. [Emphasis added.]

-7-
The dispute in this matter arises from the word “nominated” in the final sentence of the
statute. Essentially, those challenging West’s candidacy argue that he was not “nominated” for
the office he seeks, as he instead followed the process for those seeking inclusion on the ballot as
independent candidates. They argue that unlike candidates who are “nominated” by a political
party at a party convention or caucus and then file “nominating petitions,” an independent
candidate “qualifies” for the ballot by filing a “qualifying petition” with the required number of
signatures. Thus, according to West’s challengers, he has not been “nominated” for the office he
seeks, and so the final sentence of MCL 168.558(1) does not excuse him from the usual
requirement that a candidate file an AOI.

We note at the outset that both this Court and the Michigan Supreme Court have indicated
that this final sentence of MCL 168.558(1) encompasses anyone running for the office of President
or Vice President of the United States. In Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secretary
of State, 503 Mich 42, 105 n 197; 921 NW2d 247 (2018), the Supreme Court wrote: “And it is also
why all candidates for elective office in Michigan (except those running for president or vice
president of the United States) are required to file an affidavit of identity. MCL 168.558.”
Similarly, in Davis v Wayne Co Election Comm, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023)
(Docket Nos. 368615 and 368628); slip op at 19, this Court, relying on MCL 168.558(1), stated:
“[T]he Legislature has made plain that those seeking to run for the office of President of the United
States are not required to file an affidavit of identity.”

We do not view either statement as controlling in this case. “Stare decisis does not arise
from a point addressed in obiter dictum.” Griswold Props, LLC v Lexington Ins Co, 276 Mich
App 551, 563; 741 NW2d 549 (2007). Obiter dictum is a “judicial comment made during the
course of delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and
therefore not precedential (though it may be considered persuasive).” People v Higuera, 244 Mich
App 429, 437; 625 NW2d 444 (2001) (quotation omitted). In Citizens Protecting Michigan’s
Constitution, the question concerned a ballot initiative. The Court was not asked to decide the
precise scope of this final sentence of MCL 168.558(1). And in Davis, the case involved a
candidate running for the office of President of the United States as an affiliated candidate, not one
running as an independent candidate. Davis had no occasion to consider the issue that is raised in
the present matter, in which the challengers assert the statute draws a distinction between affiliated
and independent candidates. Accordingly, while both this Court and the Supreme Court have made
statements that indicate all candidates seeking the offices of President and Vice President of the
United States are not obligated to file AOIs, we consider those statements to be obiter dictum that

-8-
is not binding under the principle of stare decisis. But these statements may be considered
persuasive. Higuera, 244 Mich App at 437.6

And while we also do not consider it binding on this Court, we further note that in the
Secretary of State’s own guidance regarding appearing on the ballot as a presidential candidate,
there is no mention of the filing of an affidavit of identity. The Secretary of State’s guidance
contains a detailed explanation of the process for affiliated candidates to access the primary ballot
as presidential nominees, and how affiliated candidates then access the general election ballot,
whether as affiliated with major or minor political parties. Following that is a section detailing
how one may seek to have their name placed on the ballot as an independent candidate. This
section directs such candidates to “submit a qualifying petition bearing a sufficient number of valid
signatures, the name and address of his or her running mate, and the names, and addresses of his
or her presidential electors. This section explains how many signatures are required, what
signatures are valid, when and where to file the required documents, and how to withdraw a
petition. Yet nowhere in this section is there any mention of MCL 168.558 or the filing of an
affidavit of identity.7

The Michigan Election Law contains no definition of the word “nominated.” As such,
reference to dictionary definitions is appropriate. Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304,
312; 645 NW2d 34 (2002). The word “nominate” is defined as “to appoint or propose for
appointment to an office or place” and “to propose as a candidate for election to office”. Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary , accessed
August 29, 2024. Notably, the definition does not state how or by whom one must be nominated.
Rather, to be “nominated,” in the context of an election, is commonly understood as simply being
proposed as a candidate for election to an office. And West and Abdullah, through the qualifying
petition process, have been proposed as candidates for election to the offices they seek by those
who signed their qualifying petition.

The challengers, however, contend that in the context of MCL 168.558(1), one must
understand the word “nominated” as being limited to those who are nominated by political parties,

6
It is also true that “a decision of the Supreme Court is authoritative with regard to any point
decided if the Court’s opinion demonstrates application of the judicial mind to the precise question
adjudged, regardless of whether it was necessary to decide the question to decide the case.”
Higuera, 244 Mich App at 437 (quotation marks and citation omitted). But with respect to the
Supreme Court’s statement, it arose in a footnote responding to the dissent regarding a wholly
different topic, and was not, in our opinion, the application of the judicial mind to the disputed
question that has arisen in this case. Thus, while we are loathe to set aside any statement of the
Supreme Court, we do not believe that the Supreme Court has decided the issue presented in a
binding decision.
7
See Ballot Access Information for Presidential Candidates Seeking Office in 2024,
(accessed August 30, 2024).

-9-
and not those who obtain access to the ballot as independent candidates via qualifying petition.
The challengers draw a distinction between those nominated via political parties (and who file
nominating petitions) and those who run as independent candidates (by filing qualifying petitions),
noting the different processes and terms used by the Legislature in the Michigan Election Code.
Ultimately, the challengers believe that only those who obtain ballot access via “nominating
petition” can be said to have been “nominated” and thus are excused from the AOI requirement by
this last sentence of MCL 168.558(1).

We disagree. We begin by noting that which is absent from the final sentence of MCL
168.558(1): either of the terms “qualifying petition” or “nominating petition.” Despite using those
terms earlier in the very same statute, this final sentence does not state that those nominated by
nominating petition are excused from the AOI requirement; nor does it state that those who are
nominated by qualifying petition are not. It simply states that those who are “nominated for the
office of President of the United States or Vice President of the United States” are not required to
file an AOI. MCL 168.558(1).

Second, the statutory scheme describes a “qualifying petition” as a type of nominating
petition. Specifically, MCL 168.590(1) provides: “For the purposes of this act, ‘qualifying
petition’ means a nominating petition required of and filed by a person to qualify to appear on an
election ballot as a candidate for office without political party affiliation.” (Emphasis added.)
Where this Court must give terms defined by statute the definition ascribed by the Legislature, that
the Legislature has defined a “qualifying petition” as a type of “nominating petition” weighs
heavily toward a conclusion that the word “nominated,” as used in MCL 168.558(1), encompasses
those who seek placement on the ballot as independent candidates via “qualifying petition.”

And third, the Court of Claims also recognized another statutory indication that the final
sentence of MCL 168.558(1) encompasses a candidate such as West. In MCL 168.590h(1), the
Legislature has provided the form of qualifying petitions. And in that form, those signers of the
petition state that they “nominate” the designated person as a candidate, “without party affiliation,”
for a particular office. MCL 168.590h(1).8 This too leads to the conclusion that a “qualifying
petition” is one method by which one may become nominated for an office.9

The challengers believe that the second sentence of MCL 168.558(1) provides meaning to
the third. In the second sentence, the Legislature has explained when, exactly, candidates

8
Contrary to arguments made by Holliday on appeal, the inclusion of the word “nominate” in this
form is not the decision of a “form designer” or the work of the “arbitrary hands of scriveners.” It
is in the form created by the Legislature itself, and for which the Legislature has stated “must” be
used. See MCL 168.590h(1) (stating, “The petition must be in the following form:”, and then
providing the form that is required, including the word “nominate”).
9
This is not to say that simply filing a qualifying petition with a sufficient number of signatures is
the end of the process. Rather, the Board of State Canvassers must certify the signatures after
canvassing them and considering challenges. See MCL 168.552(8) to (14). But the fact remains
that an independent candidate who obtains ballot access via qualifying petition has been
“nominated” for the office sought—that person has been proposed as a candidate for elected office.

-10-
“nominated for a federal, state, county, city, township, or village office at a political party
convention or caucus” must file their AOI with the Secretary of State. MCL 168.558(1) (emphasis
added). They argue that the use of the word “nominated” in the third sentence reflects the use of
the same word in the second. According to the challengers, because the word “nominated” in the
second sentence was clearly in reference to those nominated at political party conventions or
caucuses, the word “nominate” in the third sentence must also mean to refer to those same persons.

We disagree. Undoubtedly, those nominated via convention or caucus are “nominated” for
election to an office. But that does not mean that this is the exclusive method by which someone
can be “nominated”. The purpose of the second sentence of the statute is to explain when those
nominated via nominating petitions must file AOIs—which is “within 1 business day after being
nominated . . . .” MCL 168.558(1). No more, and no less. It is not a definition of the word
“nominated” and does not somehow preclude a broader understanding of the word “nominated” in
the final sentence as including those nominated via a different method.

This conclusion is further supported by Legislative history. 10 Prior to the enactment of
2002 PA 163, which was the first time that MCL 168.558(1) was amended to add a sentence
excusing candidates for President and Vice President of the United States from filing AOIs, MCL
168.558(1) read as follows:

When filing a nominating petition, filing fee, or an affidavit of candidacy,
or within 1 business day of being nominated by a political party convention or
caucus, for a county, state, national, city, township, village, or school district office
in any election, a candidate shall file with the officer with whom the petitions or
fee is filed 2 copies of an affidavit. The affidavit shall contain the candidate’s name;
address; ward and precinct where registered, if qualified to vote at that election; a
statement that the candidate is a citizen of the United States; number of years of
residence in the state and county; other information that may be required to satisfy
the officer as to the identity of the candidate; a statement that, as of the date of the
affidavit, all statements, reports, late filing fees, and fines required of the candidate
or any candidate committee organized to support the candidate’s election under the
Michigan campaign finance act, 1976 PA 388, MCL 169.201 to 169.282, have been
filed or paid; and a statement that the candidate acknowledges that making a false
statement in the affidavit is perjury, punishable by a fine up to $1,000.00 or
imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. If a candidate files the affidavit with an
officer other than the county clerk or secretary of state, the officer shall immediately
forward to the county clerk 1 copy of the affidavit by first class mail. The county
clerk shall immediately forward 1 copy of the affidavit for state and national
candidates to the secretary of state by first class mail. An officer shall not certify

10
We acknowledge that Courts do not resort to Legislative history to cloud statutory text that is
plain and unambiguous. In re Certified Question from US Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit, 468
Mich 109, 116; 659 NW2d 597 (2003). And to be clear, we do not find the text of the statute
ambiguous. But we nonetheless note that the history of the relevant statutes supports our
interpretation of MCL 168.558(1).

-11-
to the board of election commissioners the name of a candidate who fails to comply
with this section. [MCL 168.558(1), as amended by 1999 PA 217.]

At the same time, MCL 168.590(1), which has been unchanged since 1988, see 1988 PA 116,
stated: “For the purposes of this act, ‘qualifying petition’ means a nominating petition required of
and filed by a person to qualify to appear on an election ballot as a candidate for office without
political party affiliation.” Thus, it seems that prior to the enactment of 2002 PA 217, any person
seeking to be placed on the ballot was required to file an “affidavit” (now an AOI), even if seeking
the office of President or Vice President of the United States. There was no exception in the
statute. And, where a “qualifying petition” was defined as a “nominating petition” by MCL
168.590(1), and the first sentence of MCL 168.558(1) imposed the affidavit filing requirement on
those filing “nominating petitions”, one could conclude that at least at that time, independent
candidates for President or Vice President of the United States were also required to file the
required affidavit.

But in 2002, the Legislature enacted 2002 PA 163. This act made several changes to
various statutes. But the Legislative bill analyses11 make clear that the main purpose of these
alterations to the Michigan Election Law was to address concerns with candidates being able to
have their titles (such as Assistant Attorney General or State Representative) listed on the ballots
purportedly to avoid confusion where other candidates on the same ballot had similar names, but
in reality, were requested for political gain.12 But it also appears that the Legislature took the
opportunity to reorganize and amend MCL 168.558. Now, MCL 168.558(1) provided:

When filing a nominating petition, qualifying petition, filing fee, or
affidavit of candidacy for a federal, county, state, city, township, village, or school
district office in any election, a candidate shall file with the officer with whom the
petitions, fee, or affidavit is filed 2 copies of an affidavit of identity. A candidate
nominated for federal, state, county, city, township, or village office at a political
party convention or caucus shall file an affidavit of identity within 1 business day
after being nominated with the secretary of state. The affidavit of identity filing
requirement does not apply to a candidate nominated for the office of president of

11
Legislative bill analyses have limited value, but “do have probative value in certain, limited
circumstances.” Kelly Servs, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 296 Mich App 306, 317; 818 NW2d 482
(2012).
12
See Senate Committee Summary, HB 5335 (February 1, 2002); Senate Floor Analysis, HB 5335
(February 12, 2002); Senate Bill Analysis, HB 5335 (March 6, 2002); House Legislative Summary,
HB 5335 (October 31, 2001); House Legislative Analysis, HB 5335 (December 4, 2001); and
House Legislative Analysis, HB 5335 (July 22, 2002). These documents are available at
(accessed August 30,
2024).

-12-
the United States or vice president of the United States. [MCL 168.558(1), as
amended by 2002 PA 163.][13]

The Legislature then explained in MCL 168.558(2) what must be contained in the affidavit of
identity, thus moving that language from where it had previously been in MCL 168.558(1) and
setting it aside in a separate subsection. MCL 168.558(2), as amended by 2002 PA 163.

As we understand these revisions, the Legislature generally sought to make the statute
easier to read by breaking up the cumbersome language of the former version of MCL 168.558(1)
and spreading it into two subsections. It also appears that the Legislature wished to make clear
that the AOI filing requirement applied to those seeking a place on the ballot by filing qualifying
petitions. And, as is the focus of this matter, the Legislature made a significant, substantive change
when it created the final sentence of MCL 168.558(1) that exists today, exempting those seeking
the offices of President and Vice President of the United States from the AOI filing requirement.

All of this aids the conclusion that this final sentence applies to all candidates for those
offices, and not just those who seek the office via nominating petition. First, the Legislature clearly
had independent candidates in mind when it amended the statute. The Legislature specifically
referenced those filing “qualifying petition[s]” in the first sentence of the statute, which it had not
done previously. Yet the Legislature did not at the same time add any language to the statute
indicating that those seeking the offices of President or Vice President of the United States as
independent candidates (by filing qualifying petitions) would not be excused from filing AOIs.
The Legislature simply referred to those “nominated” for these offices without further limitation.

Second, as we understand the second sentence of the statute as enacted in 2002, the
Legislature’s only intent was to take the language regarding when the necessary affidavit must be
filed by certain candidates (those nominated at party conventions or caucuses) out of the first
sentence of MCL 168.558(1) and set it aside in its own sentence. This reinforces our conclusion
stated earlier in this opinion: the second sentence of MCL 168.558(1) as it presently exists simply
concerns the timing of filing an AOI.14

Third, nowhere in the Legislative bill analyses is there any indication that, when it chose
to include this final sentence of MCL 168.558(1), the Legislature had any thought that the
exception would apply to affiliated candidates, but not those running as independents. There is
virtually no discussion of the sentence in the analyses, other than mentions that the amendment
would specify that the AOI filing requirement does not apply to those nominated for the offices of
President or Vice President of the United States. And indeed, we have discovered no indication

13
Currently, MCL 168.558(1) is almost identical. The only change has been to the first sentence,
where the Legislature has added “metropolitan district” to the list of offices in which candidates
must file an AOI. The words “metropolitan district were added by way of 2012 PA 586, which
added the same phrase to a number of statutes.
14
For those filing “qualifying petitions,” the first sentence states the timing requirement: for those
independent candidates required to file AOIs, the AOI must be filed at the same time one files their
qualifying petition. MCL 168.558(1).

-13-
in the Legislative analyses that, in enacting 2002 PA 163, the Legislature ever considered having
any rules be different for those running as independent candidates as opposed to those running
with party affiliation.

In sum, we agree with the Court of Claims: as a candidate who has been nominated (via
qualifying petition) for the office of President of the United States, West is not required to file an
AOI under the plain and unambiguous language of MCL 168.558(1). And as a candidate for the
office of Vice President of the United States, Abdullah likewise has no obligation to file an AOI.
MCL 168.558(1). We do not believe that this leaves any portion of the statutory framework
surplusage or nugatory. It simply recognizes that there are multiple ways that one can be
“nominated” for an office—and that one such method is by qualifying petition. The Legislature
has chosen to exempt those nominated for the offices of President and Vice President of the United
States from the AOI filing requirement, regardless of the exact method of nomination. MCL
168.558(1). West and Abdullah are plainly such candidates, and are exempt from the AOI filing
requirement.

The Secretary of State and Director argue in their brief that, even if the Court of Claims
correctly interpreted MCL 168.558(1), mandamus relief would still not be appropriate because
judicial interpretation of the statute was required, and so the Secretary of State and Director cannot
be said to have had a clear legal duty. But as this Court has explained, the right to mandamus
relief does not disappear because a difficult legal question is at play. In the context of a request
for mandamus relief, a “ ‘clear legal right’ is a right that is ‘clearly founded in, or granted by, law;
a right which is inferable as a matter of law from uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty
of the legal question to be decided.’ ” Neilson v Bd of State Canvassers, ___ Mich App ___, ___;
___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 371256); slip op at 4, quoting Rental Props Owners Ass’n of
Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498, 519; 866 NW2d 817 (2014) (emphasis added).

D. CHALLENGES TO THE AOIS FILED BY WEST AND ABDULLAH

Between the various challengers to West’s candidacy, a number of arguments have been
raised to the sufficiency of West’s and Abdullah’s AOIs. Holliday argues that West’s AOI was
not correctly notarized. The Secretary of State and Director similarly argue that the notarization
of West’s AOI was invalid, as explained by the Director in his August 16, 2024 letter. The MDP
argues that the notarization of West’s AOI was defective. And, the MDP argues that West’s and
Abdullah’s AOIs both failed to comply with the Michigan Election Law because West and
Abdullah failed to disclose their party affiliations in other states, and that Abdullah’s AOI further
violates the Michigan Election Law because she wrote on the AOI that she wished for her name to
appear on the ballot as “Cornel West”.

All of these challenges are subsumed by this Court’s holding that neither West nor
Abdullah was required to file an AOI in the first place. MCL 168.558(4) prohibits certification of
candidates “who fail[] to comply with this section,” or who “execute[] an affidavit of identity that
contains a false statement with regard to any information or statement required under this section.”
But where West and Abdullah did not have any obligation to file an AOI, neither failed to comply
with MCL 168.558, nor has either executed an AOI containing a false statement with regard to
any information that either was required to provide. We thus decline to reach the underlying
challenges to the AOIs themselves.

-14-
E. MCL 168.692a

Holliday raises an additional challenge premised on MCL 168.692a and the fact that West
and Abdullah are currently running for President and Vice President of the United States in several
other states, but as candidates affiliated with various political parties. Holliday contends that MCL
168.692a precludes West and Abdullah from seeking placement on Michigan’s ballot as
independent candidates while simultaneously running for the same offices in other states as
candidates affiliated with political parties. We disagree.

This issue again turns on interpretation of a statute. As explained previously, in Michigan,
West and Abdullah are seeking placement on the ballot as independent candidates via the
qualifying petition method of nomination provided by MCL 168.590 et seq., which is chapter
XXIVA of the Michigan Election Law. With that in mind, MCL 168.692a provides:

A person who files a partisan nominating petition or filing fee as a candidate
of a political party, or who is nominated by a political party convention, committee,
or caucus and accepts the nomination, shall not file a qualifying petition under
chapter XXIVA for an office to be elected at that election or at an election held
during the same calendar year.

The Court of Claims did not address MCL 168.692a in its decision, although it did conclude
that West’s and Abdullah’s AOIs were not defective because of a failure to identify that they were
running as affiliated candidates elsewhere. As explained, we need not be concerned with whether
the AOIs filed by West and Abdullah complied with Michigan law because neither candidate was
obligated to file an AOI in the first place. Yet this does not resolve the challenge made under MCL
168.692a. MCL 168.692a is a prohibition against certain candidates filing qualifying petitions to
run as independent candidates in Michigan. Given that West and Abdullah seek placement on the
ballot by filing qualifying petitions under chapter XXIVA, the question is whether MCL 168.692a
disqualifies them from doing so.15

There is no doubt that West and Abdullah are seeking election to the same offices of
President and Vice President of the United States, in this year’s election, and in other states. And,
there is likewise no question that in a number of other states, they are doing so as candidates
affiliated with various political parties. Holliday contends that a plain reading of MCL 168.692a
means that, by running as affiliated candidates in other states in this election cycle, West and
Abdullah cannot simultaneously be placed on the ballot in Michigan as independent candidates.
Holliday argues that the statute “refers to ‘a’ political party without geographical restriction or

15
Holliday argues at length that disaffiliation statutes (statutes that require one to disassociate from
political parties for a period of time if running as an independent candidate) are constitutionally
permissible. We need not decide whether this statute is a constitutional exercise of the
Legislature’s authority to resolve this matter, and as such, do not address any constitutional
concerns. See Dep’t of Health and Human Servs v Genesee Circuit Judge, 318 Mich App 395,
407; 899 NW2d 57 (2016) (explaining that under the rule of constitutional avoidance, “we first
consider whether statutory or general law concepts are . . . dispositive” before reaching
constitutional issues).

-15-
limit as to type—national, state, or local. It is not restricted to being the candidate of a political
party in Michigan.” Holliday explains that the Legislature could have limited the scope of MCL
168.692a geographically, by referring to candidates of Michigan political parties or to those
nominated at conventions or caucuses held in Michigan. Holliday contends that limiting the
geographic scope of the statute to Michigan would amount to adding language to the statutory text
that the Legislature did not include.

We conclude that MCL 168.692a does not prohibit West from seeking placement on the
ballot in Michigan as an independent candidate. This Court must discern the meaning of MCL
168.692a from the plain text of that statute. But context matters, and it this Court cannot “cherry-
pick” words and phrases from the statute and read them in isolation from the rest of the text.
TruGreen Ltd Partnership v Dep’t of Treasury, 338 Mich App 248, 256; 979 NW2d 739 (2021).
“This focus on the big picture echoes a primary canon of construction: the individual, discrete
words of a statute must be read holistically ‘within a view to their place in the overall statutory
scheme.’ ” Id. at 257, quoting Davis v Mich Dep’t of Treasury, 489 US 803, 809; 109 S Ct 1500;
103 L Ed 2d 891 (1989). As the Michigan Supreme Court has explained:

The statutory language must be read and understood in its grammatical context,
unless it is clear that something different was intended. Moreover, when
considering the correct interpretation, the statute must be read as a whole.
Individual words and phrases, while important, should be read in the context of the
entire legislative scheme. While defining particular words in statutes, we must
consider both the plain meaning of the critical word or phrase and its placement
and purpose in the statutory scheme. A statute must be read in conjunction with
other relevant statutes to ensure that the legislative intent is correctly ascertained.
The statute must be interpreted in a manner that ensures that it works in harmony
with the entire statutory scheme. [Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156, 167; 772
NW2d 272 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted)].

Reviewing MCL 168.692a in the context of the entire statutory scheme, we conclude that
the intent of the statute is to preclude those who seek to run in Michigan as an affiliated candidate
from also running as an independent candidate in Michigan during the same calendar year. MCL
168.692a identifies those affected by the prohibition as those who file “a partisan nominating
petition or filing fee as a candidate of a political party, or who is nominated by a political party
convention, committee, or caucus and accepts the nomination . . . .” It is true that there is no
geographical limitation expressly stated in the statute. But that limitation is apparent from context.

As a starting point, the Legislature’s authority is to regulate elections in Michigan, not in
other states. See US Const, art 1, § 4, cl 1; 1963 Const, art 2, § 4. See also In re Request for
Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich 1, 18-19; 740 NW2d 444
(2007) (explaining that states “retain the power to regulate state and local elections, subject to
federal constitutional and statutory limitations”). Thus, in enacting the Michigan Election Law,
we presume that the Legislature’s focus was on regulating Michigan elections and not any attempt
at regulating those of other states. See In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 404; 852 NW2d 524 (2014)
(“Statutes are presumed to be constitutional . . .”).

-16-
With that in mind, MCL 168.692a begins by referring to those who file a “partisan
nominating petition or filing fee . . . .” While not explicit in the statute, that is a clear reference to
the filing of a nominating petition and filing fee in Michigan, not the filing of similar documents
or fees in any other state. The next part of the sentence refers to those who are “nominated by a
political party convention, committee, or caucus and accept the nomination . . . .” Again, the
statute fails to specifically reference those events occurring in Michigan, but that seems apparent
from context. The statutes in the Michigan Election Law that immediately precede MCL 168.692a
clearly refer to party conventions and caucuses held in Michigan. MCL 168.686 explains that the
state central committee of each political party must canvass the proceedings of its state convention
and determine its nominees. The committee must then forward a list of candidates nominated to
the Secretary of State. MCL 168.686.16 MCL 168.686a describes the process for certain parties
to nominate candidates via county caucus or state convention. And MCL 168.686b explains, with
regard to the nomination process of candidates of minor political parties:

A political party that is not a major political party, as defined in section 16,
and that is required to nominate candidates at a county caucus or state convention
shall, at least 10 days before holding the county caucus or state convention to
nominate candidates, notify in writing the secretary of state and the bureau of
elections of the date, time, and location of the county caucus or state convention of
that political party.

What is clear is that these statutes are discussing how candidates are selected to be placed on
Michigan ballots.

Reading the whole statutory scheme, and not isolated words in MCL 168.692a, we
conclude that MCL 168.692a does not prohibit those who seek political office as affiliated
candidates in other states from seeking office in Michigan as independent candidates. It is clear
from the overall context of the Michigan Election Law that MCL 168.692a seeks to prohibit those
who run as affiliated candidates in Michigan from then running as independent candidates in
Michigan for offices “to be elected at that election or at an election held during the same calendar
year.” Here, West and Abdullah have only filed qualifying petitions to run in Michigan as
independent candidates. That they also are running in other states as affiliated candidates does not
run afoul of MCL 168.692a.

F. INTRA-PARTY DISPUTE

Finally, Holliday asserts that West cannot appear on the ballot in Michigan because of an
intra-party dispute involving different factions of the Natural Law Party. We disagree.

16
MCL 168.686 also contains provisions directing the state committee to forward candidates for
President and Vice President of the United States to the Secretary of State after national
conventions are held to determine those candidates. But again, the statute refers to action by a
state committee to place a candidate on a Michigan ballot. And in any event, West and Abdullah
have not been nominated for the offices sought at a national convention.

-17-
Holliday’s brief explains that, and by reference to news articles, there is a dispute among
“factions” of the Natural Law Party. Holliday explains that West sought the nomination of the
Michigan Natural Law Party, but did not obtain it; the Michigan Natural Law Party selected Robert
F. Kennedy, Jr. as its presidential candidate. The Natural Law Parties of Florida and Mississippi
have selected West as their nominee. Holliday argues that the state need not resolve that intra-
party dispute; rather, under American Indep Party v Secretary of State, 397 Mich 689; 247 NW2d
17 (1976), the burden is on the feuding political party to resolve its internal fight and present a
single candidate for president. Holliday accuses West of trying to circumvent that rule by filing
as an independent candidate in Michigan.

Notably, American Indep Party involved two factions of the same political party in
Michigan. As the opinion explains:

The American Independent Party is entitled to a column on the 1976 general
election ballot because of the vote its principal candidate received in the 1974
general election. MCLA § 168.685; MSA § 6.1685. On March 6, 1976, the State
Central Committee, chaired by Vern G. Morse, called the ‘fall’ state convention.
MCLA § 168.598; MSA § 6.1598. That same day a faction of the American
Independent Party headed by Josephine Chapman split, formed its own State
Central Committee, and called its own state convention. This faction apparently
considered itself entitled to the name ‘American Independent Party’ and made no
attempt to qualify as a new party under MCLA § 168.685.

Each faction held a convention, nominated candidates for state offices for
the 1976 general election ballot, and presented its slate to the State Director of
Elections under the vignette and name of the American Independent Party of the
State of Michigan. The director advised each that he would accept An American
Independent Party slate certified by both chairmen. [American Independent Party
of Mich, 397 Mich at 692-693.]

The Supreme Court explained that the Legislature had provided means for a new party to
obtain a place on the ballot, while “old parties may continue on the ballot. Only one American
Party has qualified for a column.” Id. at 695. The Court held that the Director “correctly left to
the American Independent Party the resolution of the intra-party dispute.” Id. at 696.

In the present case, there is no intra-party dispute in Michigan. Accepting Holliday’s
factual statements as true, West sought the nomination of Michigan’s Natural Law Party. He did
not obtain it, and instead the nomination went to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. West now seeks to run as
an independent candidate. That leaves no intra-party dispute to be resolved in Michigan. There
simply is no dispute in Michigan between competing factions of a single party. American Indep
Party of Mich thus does not provide any means of relief to Holliday.

-18-
III. CONCLUSION

Finding no errors warranting relief, we affirm the Court of Claims’ opinion and order.

/s/ Noah P. Hood
/s/ Anica Letica
/s/ Adrienne N. Young

-19-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10566824. Public record. Not legal advice.