ballots at the TCF Center. Mr. Garcia indicated there were always Republican and Democratic inspectors there at the location. He also indicated he was unaware of any unresolved counting activity problems.
By contract, plaintiffs do not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions. Plaintiffs merely assert in their verified complaint “Hundreds or thousands of ballots were duplicated solely by Democratic party inspectors and then counted.” Plaintiffs’ allegation is mere speculation.
Plaintiffs’ pleadings do not set forth a cause of action. They seek discovery in hopes of finding facts to establish a cause of action. Since there is no cause of action, the injunctive relief remedy is unavailable. Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich. App. 644; 754 NW2d 899 (2008).
The Court must also consider whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. Irreparable harm requires “A particularized showing of concrete irreparable harm or injury in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions v. Michigan Civil Service Commission, 465 Mich. 212, 225; 634 NW2d 692, (2001).
In Dunlap v. City of Southfield, 54 Mich. App. 398, 403; 221 NW2d 237 (1974), the Michigan Court of Appeals stated “An injunction will not lie upon the mere apprehension of future injury or where the threatened injury is speculative or conjectural.”
In the present case, Plaintiffs allege that the preparation and submission of “duplicate ballots” for “false reads” without the presence of inspectors of both parties violated both state law, MCL 168.765a(10), and the Secretary of State election manual. However, Plaintiffs fail to identify the occurrence and scope of any alleged violation. The only “substantive” allegation appears in paragraph 15 of the First Amended Complaint, where Plaintiffs’ allege “on information and belief” that hundreds or thousands of ballots have been impacted by this improper practice. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion fails to present any further specifics. In short, the motion is based upon speculation and conjecture. Absent any evidence of an improper practice, the Court cannot identify if this alleged violation occurred, and, if it did, the frequency of such violations. Consequently, Plaintiffs fail to move past mere apprehension of a future injury or to establish that a threatened injury is more than speculative or conjectural.
3
