Michigan Cases July 31, 2020: League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Sec'y of State

Case Description

Order

On March 11, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the motion to intervene. On order of the Court, the application and the motion to intervene are again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). We DIRECT the parties and the proposed intervenors to file supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether this case has become moot by virtue of the fact that Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections (MFTE) is no longer pursuing its ballot initiative, see Anway v. Grand Rapids R. Co. , 211 Mich. 592, 179 N.W. 350 (1920), and compare Personhood Nevada v. Bristol , 126 Nev. 599, 245 P.3d 572 (2010), and Poulton v. Cox , 368 P.3d 844 (Utah, 2016), with Meyer v. Grant , 486 U.S. 414, 417 n. 2, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988) ; (2) whether the remaining plaintiffs, League of Women Voters of Michigan, Henry Mayers, Valeriya Epshteyn, and Barry Rubin, have standing; (3) whether, if this case has become moot as to MFTE and no other plaintiff has standing, this Court should vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals reported at ––– Mich. App. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2020 WL 423319 (2020), and the judgment of the Court of Claims (Docket Nos. 19-000084-MM and 19-000092-MZ), see Anglers of the AuSable, Inc. v. Dep't of Environmental Quality , 489 Mich. 884, 796 N.W.2d 240 (2011) (vacating this Court's and the Court of Appeals’ opinions because the issue was moot), citing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950) ("The established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case ... which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below .... When that procedure is followed, the rights of all parties are preserved ...."); and (4) if the Court does proceed to the merits, whether any ruling by this Court should apply prospectively only, see Pohutski v. City of Allen Park , 465 Mich. 675, 641 N.W.2d 219 (2002).

Markman, J. (dissenting).

[946 N.W.2d 307]

I would not direct the parties and the proposed intervenors to file supplemental briefs.