Trending
Recently, our county clerk rejected petitions calling for the recall of three Alpena Public Schools school board members.
Earlier, our clerk had accepted these same petitions. But when a law firm told her the petitions were procedurally defective and that if she didn't withdraw her approval, they would take the matter to court, she changed her position and denied the petitions.
I believe that was a mistake. If our county clerk had maintained her approval and the issue had been presented to a judge, I believe her initial acceptance would have been sustained.
What was the problem?
Simply this:
Michigan Compiled law 168.957, entitled: "Recall petition; certificate of circulator —-' reads in pertinent part:
A person circulating a recall petition shall state in the certificate of circulator his or her residence address and that he or she is 18 years of age or older and a United States citizen —
Only the circulator's residence address is required.
But another section, MCL 168.952(1), incorporates the petition form set forth in MCL 168.544c, and that form requires a circulator to identify their city or township in addition to their residence address.
The recall petition circulators had only provided their residence addresses.
So which section controls? The one that requires only the circulator’s residence address, or the one that requires their residence address and, separately, their city or township?
The law firm asserted that MCL 544c controlled, a position our clerk accepted, resulting in the petitions’ disapproval and the denial of a recall election.
Generally, our election law requires strict compliance with its provisions. Substantial compliance, no matter how well-intentioned, is not enough. Our Supreme Court has supported this position.
The law firm cited the Michigan Court of Appeals decision Wickman v. Norway Township (2024) to support its position. There, circulators had failed to separately list their township or city in addition to their residence addresses. The court found that strict compliance with MCL 168.544c was required.
But the Wickman case didn't involve a recall petition; it involved a referendum petition seeking to overturn a zoning ordinance. When considering recall petitions, another statute becomes relevant: MCL 168.952a.
MCL 168.952a is captioned “Recall petitions; blank forms; substantial compliance.” The statute reads:
"The county clerk shall retain blank forms of recall petitions for use by the electors in the county. A person may print his or her own recall petitions if those petitions comply substantially with the form prescribed by the secretary of state and the requirements of 544c(2)."
The legislature has opened the substantial-compliance door for recall petitions, creating an exception to the strict-construction mandate. Did the recall petitions seeking the recall of the three named school board members substantially comply with recall law requirements? I believe they did.
And I believe a judge would so find. Requiring duplicate residence information for recall petitions is a technical requirement without substance, especially in the case of Alpena Public Schools, whose boundaries encompass all Alpena County townships and its sole city.
It makes no difference what township or city a recall petition circulator lives in; in fact, they need not reside in Michigan at all; they only need to be 18 years of age and a citizen of the United States. (MCl 168.957)
There’s more: a rule of statutory construction. Though the rule has a long Latin name, its proposition is simple: laws should be interpreted to avoid absurd results.
Denying these petitions produced an absurd result, disenfranchising thousands of well-meaning citizens in our community. Citizens who were denied a test of their conviction that recalling the named school board members would provide an opportunity to improve the governance of our public schools.
A tip of the hat to that downstate law firm; they accomplished what they were paid to do. But they left us with unfinished business.
Let's disregard politics, personal agendas, slanderous comments, and vast expenditures of money in what should be a deliberative, non-political process for filling non-partisan positions.
Let's keep it simple and keep it clean.
Let's support a governance for our public schools that supports its traditional mandate, one that seeks to provide every child – regardless of socioeconomic status, background, or ability an opportunity to survive and prosper in what will certainly be challenging years.
And let’s recognize the unique role public education plays as a melting pot of people from different backgrounds, different religions and beliefs, different abilities, intellects, cultures, incomes, and talents. An amalgamation vital to unifying our fragmented society and crucial to its continued existence.