MARIE DONIGAN V OAKLAND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARIE DONIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
May 15, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 284909
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-087516-CZ
OAKLAND COUNTY ELECTION
COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Advance Sheets Version
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Cavanagh and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Oakland County Election Commission, appeals by delayed application for
leave to appeal granted the circuit court order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff,
Marie Donigan, the State Representative from the 26th House District, and declaring the
language of a recall petition insufficiently clear pursuant to MCL 168.952(1)(c). We reverse.
Defendant received a petition seeking to recall plaintiff. The petition states the reasons
for plaintiff’s recall as: “Voted yes on 2007 House Bill 5194 to increase the income tax to 4.35
percent, and voted yes on 2007 House Bill 5198 to impose new 6 percent taxes on certain
services.”
Under MCL 168.952(1)(c), a petition for the recall of an officer shall “[s]tate clearly each
reason for the recall. Each reason for the recall shall be based upon the officer’s conduct during
his or her current term of office.” The petition was submitted to defendant, MCL 168.952(2),
and defendant met pursuant to MCL 168.952(3) to determine whether each reason for the recall
stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the
electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall. Defendant, by a divided
vote, approved the petition language.
Plaintiff thereafter filed the present action challenging defendant’s decision. Plaintiff
moved for summary disposition, arguing that the petition language is not sufficiently clear, and
raising a constitutional challenge to MCL 168.23(1) and MCL 168.952.1 The circuit court
1
Plaintiff argues that this matter should be remanded to the trial court to resolve the
(continued…)
-1-
granted plaintiff’s motion, ruling that the language in the petition is not sufficiently clear and
does not satisfy the clarity requirement of MCL 168.952(1)(c) because it does not refer to the
subject bills in their entirety or inform the electors of the specific vote on the bills and the
specific outcome. The court opined that the petition must include “enough language to give the
electors enough information about what was actually voted on to give them the ability to make
an informed decision about the recall petition.”
Defendant argues that the circuit court erred by concluding that the language of the
petition is not sufficiently clear under MCL 168.952(1)(c). This Court reviews de novo both the
circuit court’s decision on plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition and its construction of
MCL 168.952(3). Goldstone v Bloomfield Twp Pub Library, 479 Mich 554, 558; 737 NW2d 476
(2007); South Haven v Van Buren Co Bd of Comm’rs, 478 Mich 518, 525; 734 NW2d 533
(2007).
The standard to be applied when reviewing the clarity of a petition for recall is set forth
in Dimas v Macomb Co Election Comm, 248 Mich App 624, 627-628; 639 NW2d 850 (2001):
The standard of review for clarity of recall petitions has been described as
both “lenient,” and “very lenient.” “Thus, recall review by the courts should be
very, very limited.” A meticulous and detailed statement of the charges against
an officeholder is not required. It is sufficient if an officeholder is apprised of the
course of conduct in office that is the basis of the recall drive, so that a defense
can be mounted regarding that conduct. “Where the clarity of the reasons stated
in the petition is a close question, doubt should be resolved in favor of the
individual formulating the petition.” [Citations omitted.]
“All that is required is that the reason for recall be stated with sufficient clarity ‘to enable the
officer and electors to identify the transaction and know the charges made in connection
therewith.’” Mastin v Oakland Co Elections Comm, 128 Mich App 789, 795; 341 NW2d 797
(1983), quoting Woods v Saginaw Co Clerk, 80 Mich App 596, 598-599; 264 NW2d 74 (1978).
The circuit court determined that the language of the instant petition is not sufficiently
clear because it does not fully explain the nature and effect of the bills at issue. This is not a
basis for finding the language unclear. The language clearly states the basis for the recall:
plaintiff’s votes on two House bills. In challenging the language as not sufficiently clear,
plaintiff seems to suggest that the way the petition language is framed in this case either
untruthfully represents the bills or at least fails to provide a complete synopsis of the bills.
However, “truth itself is not a consideration in determining the clarity of recall petition
language.” Mastin, supra at 798. The circuit court does not have authority to review petition
statements for truthfulness. Meyers v Patchkowski, 216 Mich App 513, 518; 549 NW2d 602
(…continued)
constitutional issue. Although this Court may address constitutional issues that the trial court did
not resolve, Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379, 426; 576 NW2d
667 (1998), we decline to address the issue at this juncture. Plaintiff is free to pursue the issue in
the trial court. Further, the issue is pending before this Court in two consolidated appeals,
Bogeart v Wayne Co Election Comm (Docket No. 284098), and Hett v Wayne Co Election Comm
(Docket No. 284101).
-2-
(1996). “Such a determination is a political question for the voters, not the courts.” Id. See also
Const 1963, art 2, § 8 (the sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally
required shall be a political rather than a judicial question). This same principle applies with
regard to whether the language of the petition sufficiently explains the nature of any legislation
referred to within it. Whether HB 5194 simply increased the income tax rate, whether HB 5198
imposed a new tax on services, or whether those bills imposed some additional or different
measures, are political questions to be considered by the voters, not by the court.
In In re Wayne Co Election Comm, 150 Mich App 427, 438; 388 NW2d 707 (1986), this
Court explained:
[D]oubt as to clarity should be resolved in favor of the proponents of the
recall. Moreover, if any one of several allegations contained in the petition is
deemed to be sufficiently clear, the petition must be upheld. The foregoing rules
demonstrate that the standard of review for clarity of statement is very lenient.
[Citations omitted.]
In Schmidt v Genesee Co Clerk, 127 Mich App 694, 699; 339 NW2d 526 (1983), the
Court offered this reflection by a commentator who approved of the judicial restraint
demonstrated by the majority when reviewing the clarity of recall-petition language in Molitor v
Miller, 102 Mich App 344; 301 NW2d 532 (1980):
“Overall, the decision [to exercise judicial restraint] is correct from the
standpoint that quite often laymen are required to draft recall petitions. To require
technical detail in the statement of charges would be too burdensome and could
defeat the purpose of the recall statute. The Michigan constitution reserves the
power of recall to the people. Courts should not, and generally do not, interfere
with this basic right. To require meticulous and technically detailed statements of
the charges in recall petitions would in effect thrust the courts into reviewing
every recall petition, thereby usurping the power of the people.” [Schmidt, supra
at 699, quoting Berry, Local Government Law, 28 Wayne L R 979, 984 (1982).]
Keeping in mind the limitation on our review of the petition language, we conclude that
the language of the recall petition submitted to defendant for approval is sufficiently clear. The
petition specifically identifies plaintiff’s favorable votes regarding two House bills as the reasons
recall was sought. The language specifically identifies the House bills and indicates that one of
the bills increases taxes and one imposes new taxes. Whether the representations of those bills
are truthful or complete is irrelevant for purposes of determining the clarity of the language. The
petition language is concise and clear, and meets the requirements of MCL 168.952(1)(3). The
circuit court erred by failing to uphold defendant’s approval of the petition language.
Reversed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.