When considering a petition for injunctive relief the Court must apply the following four-prong test:
- The likelihood the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits.
- The danger the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
- The risk the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction that the opposing party would be by the granting of the injunction.
- The harm to the public interest if the injunction is issued. Davis v. City of Detroit Financial Review Team, 296 Mich. App. 568, 613; 821 NW2d 896 (2012).
In the Davis opinion, the Court also stated that injunctive relief “represents and extraordinary and drastic use of judicial power that should be employed sparingly and only with full conviction of its urgent necessity.” Id. at 612 fn 135, quoting Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass’n v. Detroit, 218 Mich. App. 263, 269; 553 NW2d 679 (1996).
When deciding whether injunctive relief is appropriate MCR 3.310(A)(4) indicated that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the preliminary injunction should be granted.
Plaintiffs’ pleadings do not persuade this Court that they are likely to prevail on the merits for several reasons. First, this Court believes plaintiffs misinterpret the required placement of major party inspectors at the absent voter counting board location. MCL 168.765a(10) stated in part: “At least on election inspector from each major political party must be present at the absent voter counting place….” While plaintiffs contends the statutory section mandates there be a Republican and Democratic inspector at each table inside the room, the statute does not identify this requirement. This Court believes the plain language of this statute requires there be election inspectors at the TCF Center facility, the site of the absentee counting effort.
Pursuant to MCL 168.73a the County chairs for Republic and Democratic parties were permitted and did submit names of absent voter counting board inspectors to the City of Detroit Clerk. Consistent with MCL 168.674, the Detroit City Clerk did make appointments of inspectors. Both Republican and Democratic inspectors were present throughout the absent voter counting board location.
An affidavit supplied by Lawrence Garcia, Corporation Counsel for the City of Detroit, indicated he was present throughout the time of the counting of absentee
2
