Background
Mark Michael Koroi sought election as a judge of Michigan’s 31st District Court, which covers Hamtramck. On April 21, 2026, he submitted nominating petitions and an affidavit of identity stating that he lived in Hamtramck and met the statutory and constitutional qualifications for office. A petition he had circulated one day earlier, however, identified his residence as an address in Warren.
The Bureau of Elections determined that Koroi had not resided in Hamtramck for the 30 days required to qualify as an elector there and declined to certify his candidacy. After the Board of State Canvassers deadlocked on a conditional determination concerning his petitions, Koroi sought mandamus and declaratory relief. The Court of Claims granted summary disposition to the Board and Secretary of State and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Michigan Constitution article 2, § 4(1)(f), which permits voter registration through election day, did not supersede or invalidate the 30-day local-residency requirement in MCL 168.10(1). The constitutional provision grants registration rights to electors qualified to vote, while article 2, § 1 permits local-residency requirements established by law. Because Koroi had not lived in Hamtramck for 30 days by the April 21 filing deadline, he was not a qualified elector of the judicial district under MCL 168.467.
Koroi therefore lacked a clear legal right to certification, and the Secretary of State had no clear legal duty to certify him. Because his affidavit of identity falsely certified that he met the qualifications for office, MCL 168.558(4) required the Secretary not to certify his name. His disqualification also rendered moot his challenge to the Board’s review of his petitions.
The court further found no abuse of discretion in declining Koroi’s request, made in his summary-disposition response, to add an equal-protection claim. His delay was unjustified because the proposed claim relied on longstanding authority, and amendment during the expedited proceedings would have given defendants only four days, including a weekend, to respond. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the separate order denying his postjudgment motion to amend because that order was entered after the final order from which he appealed.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s constitutional right to register through election day does not eliminate the statutory requirement that a qualified elector reside in the relevant city or township for 30 days before the election.
- A district-court candidate must be a registered and qualified elector of the judicial district by the filing deadline or the date the affidavit of candidacy is filed.
- A late request to add a constitutional claim may be denied for undue delay and prejudice, particularly in expedited election litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that same-day voter-registration rights and candidate-eligibility requirements perform different functions. A prospective judicial candidate cannot rely on the constitutional registration provision to avoid the Legislature’s 30-day local-residency qualification.
It also underscores the importance of presenting all constitutional theories at the outset of expedited ballot-access litigation and accurately certifying eligibility in an affidavit of identity.