On May 9th, a letter to the editor appeared from former probate judge Tom LaCross criticizing the effort to recall some school board members. After noting his prior experience as a probate judge, former judge LaCross stated that during his tenure, he “was able to review proposed ballots and ballot language.” He then made the following assertion:

“The proposed language of the recall petition does not rise to the level of special ballot consideration.”

LaCross fails to advise that this “special ballot consideration” is a notion of his own making, and any failure in reference to it is a failure of his creation.

MCL 168.952 provides: “The county board of election commissioners (1) shall meet and determine whether each reason for the recall stated in the petition is factual and of sufficient clarity.” Michigan case law has determined that the term “factual” means the petition must describe a “factual occurrence or make a factual assertion about an official’s conduct.”

Nothing more is required.

To the extent that Judge LaCross’s assertion of a failure to meet some “special ballot consideration” creates the impression that the recall petitions is legally insufficient, they are unfortunate and wrong.

The election commission, composed of our county clerk and treasurer and chaired by the currently serving probate judge Alan Curtis, met to review the petitions’ language. Their determination was unanimous that the petitions’ allegations were factual and clearly expressed.

Whether those allegations merit recalling the named school board members is up to us, the voters, guided by a common-sense determination of whether those reasons merit recall action.