6
would note at the outset that they have apparently made a procedural misstep. Although the Michigan Constitution gives this Court jurisdiction over mandamus actions, see Const 1963, art 6, § 4 (stating that “the supreme court shall have … power to issue, hear and determine prerogative and remedial writs”), we have provided by rule that such actions must begin in either the Court of Appeals or the Court of Claims, MCR 3.305(A)(1). “Reasons of policy dictate that such complaints be directed to the first tribunal within the structure of Michigan’s one court of justice having competence to hear and act upon them.” People v Flint Muni Judge, 383 Mich 429, 432 (1970). This is why the court rule for original actions in our Court refers only to proceedings for superintending control, which extends to either the lower courts or certain other judicial entities, MCR 7.306(A)(1) and (2), not the executive branch. We have indicated a willingness to disregard such errors in the past, see, e.g., McNally v Wayne Co Bd of Canvassers, 316 Mich 551, 555-556 (1947), but petitioners’ audit-related arguments begin in a bad position.
More importantly, there is no apparent purpose to which the audit sought by the petitioners can be put in light of the above-mentioned jurisdictional limits on the judiciary’s ability to revisit the outcome of this election. Given the apparent inability of canvassing boards to investigate fraud, there is a fundamental disconnect between petitioners’ allegations of fraud and their request for an audit. Justice Zahra “would have ordered an immediate evidentiary hearing before a special master for the purpose of ferreting out whether there is any substance to the very serious-but-as-yet-unchallenged allegations of irregularities and outright violations of Michigan Election Law that petitioners assert took place before the vote was certified … .” But such an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary—in any event, those boards of canvassers had no authority to perform (or at least act on) such a factual investigation. Moreover, the boards have certified the results and certificates of election have been issued; it is difficult to see how any judicial proceeding could undo that process. I fail to see how those certification choices can be taken back any more than the Governor can take back a pardon once issued. Cf. Makowski v Governor, 495 Mich 465 (2014). This is not to say that certificates of election cannot be challenged; rather, it is to say that an election contest needs to take the form of a challenge to the certificate of election, rather than a challenge to the ministerial certification process.
There is also reason to believe that the right to an audit does not extend to changing the outcome of an election. The statute that implements the right to an audit
noted, mandamus might be, at least to the extent that petitioners seek to compel the Secretary of State to perform a clear legal duty. But that would not extend to this Court’s performing said audit; nowhere in the law is it this Court’s legal duty to perform any audit. The same can also be said of the Legislature, which is in addition not even a named defendant in this action, so it is hard to imagine how we would order the Legislature to do anything even if that were not an assault on the separation of powers.
