COA 382186 ANN ARBOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY COALITION V CITY OF ANN ARBOR CLERK Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 9/2/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
ANN ARBOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
COALITION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
September 02, 2026
3:27 PM
v No. 382186
Washtenaw Circuit Court
CITY OF ANN ARBOR CLERK and CITY OF
ANN ARBOR,
LC No. 26-001618-CZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ACKERMAN, P.J., and SWARTZLE and LETICA, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Ann Arbor Responsible Energy Coalition (AAREC), appeals by right an August
25, 2026 order of the Washtenaw Circuit Court that denied its request for a writ of mandamus and
granted summary disposition to defendants, the City of Ann Arbor Clerk (the Clerk) and the City
of Ann Arbor. We affirm.
I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
Ann Arbor for Public Power (A2P2) is a ballot committee formed to support passage of an
amendment to the city charter, by way of initiatory petition, that would create a public power utility
governance board to govern a city-owned electric utility. AAREC is a ballot committee formed
to oppose the initiatory petition.
On June 22, 2026, A2P2 filed its initiatory petition with the Clerk. On August 4, 2026, the
Clerk certified the initiatory petition for placement on the November 2026 ballot. Specifically, the
Clerk certified the following:
On June 22, 2026, an initiatory petition for amendment of the Ann Arbor City
Charter, to add a new Section 15.11 to create a municipal electric utility governed
by the Ann Arbor Municipal Electric Board, was filed with the office of the City
Clerk by Mr. Brian Geiringer of the Ann Arbor for Public Power Ballot Committee;

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
The filing included 614 petition sheets and approximately 5130 signatures, by
estimate of City staff. On June 22, the count of registered voters in the City of Ann
Arbor was 99,125 voters, requiring 4,957 signatures (5% of registered voters);
Two supplemental filings were received from the petitioner on July 21 (115 sheets)
and July 27, 2026 (123 sheets) with an estimated number of additional signatures
to be 886 on July 21 and 801 on July 27;
Pursuant to the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.25 and Michigan Election law, the
petition signatures were canvassed, and 5,383 signatures were determined to be
valid and qualified on August 3, 2026;
The petition included the following ballot language:
Shall Chapter 15 of the Charter be amended to require the City to
establish a municipal electric utility and governance structure
therefore?
The petition is hereby certified for placement on the November 3, 2026 General
Election ballot, having contained a sufficient number of signatures of qualified and
registered electors of the City of Ann Arbor, in accordance with the provisions of
PA 279 of 1909, as amended.
AAREC sued defendants. It sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Clerk to disregard
the supplemental signatures that were filed on July 21, 2026, and July 27, 2026, and to canvass
and certify the sufficiency or insufficiency of the initiatory petition solely on the signatures that
were filed on June 22, 2026. It also sought a declaratory judgment that, even if there were
sufficient signatures for the initiatory petition, the proposed amendment did not qualify for
placement on the ballot for two independent reasons: it was not confined to one subject and it was
a revision of the city charter.
Following briefing, the trial court granted summary disposition to defendants. The trial
court concluded that the Clerk had no clear legal duty to reject the supplemental signatures. It
chose not to grant preelection review to AAREC’s arguments that the proposed amendment was
not confined to one subject and was a revision of the city charter.
II. ANALYSIS
AAREC argues that the Clerk had a clear legal duty to reject the supplemental petitions.
We disagree.
As explained in Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37, 41; 890 NW2d 882 (2016):
We review de novo, as questions of law, whether defendants have a clear
legal duty to perform and whether plaintiff has a clear legal right to performance of
any such duty. Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308
Mich App 498, 518; 866 NW2d 817 (2014). Related issues of statutory
interpretation are also reviewed de novo. Beach v Lima Twp, 489 Mich 99, 105-

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
106; 802 NW2d 1 (2011). Contrastingly, because mandamus is a “discretionary
writ,” Owen v Detroit, 259 Mich 176, 177; 242 NW 878 (1932), we review for an
abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision regarding whether to grant mandamus
relief, Rental Props, 308 Mich App at 518.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. Univ Med Affiliates, PC v Wayne Co Executive,
142 Mich App 135, 142; 369 NW2d 277 (1985). Thus, the issuance of a writ of mandamus is only
proper where (1) the party seeking the writ has a clear legal right to performance of the specific
duty sought, (2) the defendant has the clear legal duty to perform the act requested, (3) the act is
ministerial, and (4) no other remedy exists, legal or equitable, that might achieve the same result.
Rental Props, 308 Mich App at 518. “In relation to a request for mandamus, a clear, legal right is
one clearly founded in, or granted by, law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law from
uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal question to be decided.” Id. at 518-
519 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A ministerial act is one in which the law prescribes
and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the
exercise of discretion or judgment.” Hillsdale Co Senior Servs, Inc v Hillsdale Co, 494 Mich 46,
58 n 11; 832 NW2d 728 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “The burden of showing
entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is on the plaintiff.” White-Bey v
Dep’t of Corrections, 239 Mich App 221, 223; 608 NW2d 833 (1999).
Under the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1 et seq., a city charter may be amended by an
initiatory petition. MCL 117.21(1). MCL 117.25 provides, in pertinent part:
(1) An initiatory petition authorized by this act shall be addressed to and
filed with the city clerk. The petition shall state what body, organization, or person
is primarily interested in and responsible for the circulation of the petition and the
securing of the amendment. Each sheet of the petition shall be verified by the
affidavit of the person who obtained the signatures to the petition. The petition
shall be signed by at least 5% of the qualified and registered electors of the
municipality. Each signer of the petition shall also write, immediately after his or
her signature, the date of signing and his or her street address. A signature obtained
more than 1 year before the filing of the petition with the city clerk shall not be
counted. The petition is subject to the requirements of [MCL 117.25a.]
* * *
(3) Upon receipt of the petition, the city clerk shall canvass it to ascertain if
it is signed by the requisite number of registered electors. For the purpose of
determining the validity of the petition, the city clerk may check any doubtful
signatures against the registration records of the city. Within 45 days from the date
of the filing of the petition, the city clerk shall certify the sufficiency or
insufficiency of the petition. If the petition contains the requisite number of
signatures of registered electors, the clerk shall submit the proposed amendment to
the electors of the city at the next regular municipal or general state election held
in the city which shall occur not less than 90 days following the filing of the
petition.

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
Section 25 foresees the filing of one petition. Under § 25(3), upon receipt of “the
petition”—and the petition is the signature sheets, MCL 117.25(1)—the clerk “shall canvass it to
ascertain if it is signed by the requisite number of” signatures. MCL 117.25(3). The clerk, within
45 days from the date of the filing of “the petition,” shall certify the sufficiency or insufficiency
of “the petition.” Id. If “the petition” contains the required number of signatures, the clerk shall
submit the proposed amendment to the registered electors. Id. Section 25 does not contemplate
the filing of supplemental signatures, nor does it expressly give the body, organization, or person
responsible for the circulation of the petition the right to file supplemental signatures.
At the same time, § 25 does not expressly direct a clerk to reject for filing and canvassing
any supplemental signatures. The Legislature knows how to prohibit the filing of supplemental
signatures for petitions and like documents. See MCL 168.475(2); MCL 168.961(1).
Section 25 is silent on whether a clerk may accept for filing and canvassing, or must reject,
any supplemental signatures that are submitted. Although § 25 does not contemplate or expressly
allow the filing and canvassing of supplemental signatures, § 25 also does not expressly prohibit
a clerk from accepting and canvassing supplemental signatures. Under these circumstances,
AAREC has not pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines the duty to reject
supplemental signatures nor demonstrated its clear legal right to performance of this specific duty.
Kennedy v Secretary of State, 515 Mich 893, 893-894 (2024); see also Burton Abstract & Title Co
v Martin, 38 Mich App 178, 180-181; 196 NW2d 23 (1972) (stating that the register of deeds had
no clear legal duty to collect fees when the “statute does not say that a fee cannot be charged nor
does it make the charging of one mandatory”). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the requested writ of mandamus.
Next, AAREC argues that the initiatory petition, even if there were sufficient signatures,
was ineligible for placement on the November 2026 ballot because the proposed amendment
concerns more than one subject and constitutes a revision of the city charter. AAREC also argues
that the trial court erred by not addressing these arguments before the election.
Because these arguments concerned whether the initiatory petition met statutory
requirements for placement on the ballot, the arguments were ripe for judicial review, Farmington
v Farmington Survey Committee, ___ Mich App ___, ___ n 2; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket
No. 372022); slip op at 3 n 2, and the trial court erred by not addressing AAREC’s argument that
the proposed amendment concerned more than one subject. The trial court did not err by declining
to address the argument that the proposed amendment constituted a revision of the city charter.
The argument in AAREC’s brief filed with the trial court was barely one page long and included
one citation to caselaw. AAREC quoted the statement from Midland v Arbury, 38 Mich App 771,
774; 197 NW2d 134 (1972), that “[a] change in the form of government of a home rule city may
be made only by revision of the city charter, not by amendment,” but it made no attempt to explain
what the difference was between a revision and an amendment. AAREC could not expect the trial
court to unravel and elaborate its argument. “Trial courts are not the research assistants of the
litigants; the parties have a duty to fully present their legal arguments to the court for its resolution
of their dispute.” Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 388; 751 NW2d 431 (2008).
AAREC’s argument that the proposed amendment includes more than one related
proposition is without merit. MCL 117.21(3) provides:

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
A proposed charter amendment shall be confined to 1 subject. If the subject
of a charter amendment includes more than 1 related proposition, each proposition
shall be separately stated to afford an opportunity for an elector to vote for or
against each proposition . . . .
Proposed amendments that relate to the same subject and are aimed at the same purpose must be
treated as one amendment and voted on as such. Henry v Pontiac, 363 Mich 302, 305; 109 NW2d
835 (1961).
The proposed amendment would add §§ 15.11(a) and 15.11(b) to the city charter. Proposed
§ 15.11(a) states that the city council “shall provide by ordinance for the establishment of a
municipal electric utility to be governed by the Ann Arbor Municipal Electric Utility Board
described in Section 15.11(b).” Proposed § 15.11(b)(1) provides that the board “shall have
jurisdiction, control, and management of any municipal electric utility established by the City and
all of its operations and facilities.” According to AAREC, other subsections in proposed
§ 15.11(b), such as whether operational decisions of the board can only be amended or voided by
the city council with eight affirmative votes or whether one of the board’s four appointed seats
should be reserved for a representative of organized labor, are “related propositions.” Those
subsections, however, are fundamentally related to the board, such as the board’s composition, the
board’s oversight by the city council, and the board’s management of the municipal electric utility.
The amendment is confined to one subject—the establishment and administration or governance
of a municipal electric utility.
Affirmed.
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
/s/ Anica Letica

-- 5 of 5 --