SOCIALIST PARTY OF MICHIGAN V SECRETARY OF STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SOCIALIST PARTY OF MICHIGAN and
DWAIN C. REYNOLDS III,
UNPUBLISHED
September 3, 2010
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 299951
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 10-000867-CZ
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and O’CONNELL and M. J. KELLY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court’s order denying their motion for summary
disposition and dismissing the action with prejudice. We affirm.
Plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking access to the
ballot for the November 2010 general election. They challenged the constitutionality of MCL
168.685, which establishes the requirements for placing new political parties or formerly
disqualified parties on the ballot. The statute provides in pertinent part:
(1) The name of a candidate of a new political party shall not be printed upon the
official ballots of an election unless the chairperson and secretary of the state
central committee of the party files with the secretary of state, not later than 4
p.m. of the one hundred-tenth day before the general November election, a
certification signed by the chairperson and secretary of the state central committee
bearing the name of the party, together with petitions bearing the signatures of
registered and qualified electors equal to not less than 1% of the total number of
votes cast for all candidates for governor at the last election in which a governor
was elected. The petitions shall be signed by at least 100 registered electors in
each of at least 1/2 of the congressional districts of the state. All signatures on the
petitions shall be obtained not more than 180 days immediately before the date of
filing.
*
*
*
(6) If the principal candidate of a political party receives a vote equal to less than
1% of the total number of votes cast for the successful candidate for the office of
-1-
secretary of state at the last preceding general November election in which a
secretary of state was elected, that political party shall not have the name of any
candidate printed on the ballots at the next ensuing general November election,
and a column shall not be provided on the ballots for that party. A disqualified
party may again qualify and have the names of its candidates printed in a separate
party column on each election ballot in the manner set forth in subsection (1) for
the qualification of new parties. The term “principal candidate” of a political
party means the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes of all
candidates of that political party for that election. [MCL 168.685(1) and (6).]
Because it is undisputed that plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements of MCL 168.685,
indeed they made no attempts to qualify for the ballot, plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief depends on
their ability to establish that the statute is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argue that the requirements
of MCL 168.685 are overly burdensome in terms of both the number of petition signatures
required and the costs involved in circulating petitions to obtain the necessary number of
signatures. They maintain that the statute unfairly disadvantages new or minor parties.
We review de novo a trial court’s ruling in a declaratory judgment action. Toll v
Northville Ltd v Northville Twp, 480 Mich 6, 10; 743 NW2d 902 (2008). We also review de
novo issues of constitutional law and statutory law. Wayne Co v Hathcock, 471 Mich 445, 455;
684 NW2d 765 (2004).
Although plaintiffs label their argument in terms of an equal protection challenge, they do
not apply an equal protection framework to their analysis of MCL 168.685. See Harvey v
Michigan, 469 Mich 1, 6-7; 664 NW2d 767 (2003). Rather, plaintiffs’ argument sounds more in
equity than constitutional law. Plaintiffs contend, without undertaking any effort to satisfy the
statutory requirements to access the ballot, that the burden of doing so is too great, and this Court
should direct their placement on the November ballot. We disagree and find no merit to
plaintiffs’ argument that MCL 168.685 should be invalidated on the basis of an equal protection
argument.
We find no merit to plaintiffs’ reliance on MCL 168.560a. The statute provides that a
political party is qualified to have its name, vignette, and candidates listed on the general election
ballot if in the last general election, its principal candidate received at least “1% of the total
number of votes cast for the successful candidate for Secretary of State at the last preceding
election in which a Secretary of State was elected[.]” Plaintiff Socialist Party of Michigan was
not a designated party on the November 2008 ballot, and therefore had no “principal candidate.”
On the record presented, § 560a does not entitle plaintiffs to a place on the ballot in the
November 2010 election.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2-
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.
