Background
Robert Davis challenged legislative candidate Cranstana LaMonta Anderson’s affidavit of identity after the administrative deadline had passed. Anderson’s affidavit requested that her name appear on the ballot as “Cranstana Gina Brown Anderson,” and Davis contended that the inclusion of “Gina” violated Michigan law and made the affidavit defective. The Secretary of State rejected his challenge as untimely and found that his belated public-records request did not establish good cause for missing the deadline.
Davis sued in the Court of Claims, challenging both Anderson’s affidavit and the validity of Mich Admin Code, R 168.5, which required officials to reject affidavit challenges filed more than seven days after the filing deadline. He later added a claim concerning another candidate, Michael Howard, but the Court of Claims struck that claim and granted summary disposition to the Secretary. Davis appealed after both Anderson and Howard lost the 2026 primary election.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that all of Davis’s issues were moot because the primary election had occurred and the challenged candidates had lost. It nevertheless reviewed the facial validity of Rule 168.5 under the public-significance exception because the issue was likely to recur yet evade appellate review. The court declined to apply that exception to Davis’s fact-specific good-cause argument, his challenge to Anderson’s ballot name, the stricken claim concerning Howard, or the laches issue.
On the merits, the court upheld Rule 168.5’s seven-day deadline. Assuming without deciding that Michigan law provides a right to challenge an affidavit of identity, the court concluded that the Legislature’s failure to prescribe a procedure for such challenges left a gap that the Secretary could fill through administrative rulemaking. The deadline neither exceeded the Secretary’s statutory authority nor conflicted with legislative intent, so the Secretary properly rejected Davis’s late challenge and the Court of Claims properly granted summary disposition.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s seven-day administrative deadline for challenging an affidavit of identity was a valid exercise of the Secretary of State’s delegated rulemaking authority.
- The court assumed without deciding that a right to challenge an affidavit of identity exists under Michigan law.
- Although Davis had merit in arguing that the Court of Claims should not have struck his amended claim concerning Howard, that issue was moot because Howard lost the primary.
Why It Matters
The published decision supplies binding guidance on an election procedure not expressly addressed by statute. It confirms that an agency may establish procedural deadlines through administrative rules when the Legislature has delegated rulemaking authority and left a gap in the statutory framework.
The ruling also illustrates the narrow reach of the exception permitting review of moot election disputes: the court resolved the recurring legal question concerning the rule’s validity but declined to decide candidate-specific and fact-dependent disputes that would no longer affect the completed election.