COA 382065 SHALANDA C LEGGS V SECRETARY OF STATE Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 8/25/2026

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
SHALANDA C. LEGGS and ROBERT DAVIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
UNPUBLISHED
August 25, 2026
1:11 PM
v No. 382065
Court of Claims
SECRETARY OF STATE, LC No. 26-000148-MB
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KOROBKIN, P.J., and FEENEY and BAZZI, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this expedited1 election matter, plaintiffs, Shalanda C. Leggs and Robert Davis, appeal
by right the Court of Claims’ August 17, 2026 order granting disposition to defendant, the
Secretary of State (the SOS), and denying plaintiffs’ emergency motion for an evidentiary hearing
and to conduct limited discovery. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As aptly summarized by the Court of Claims:
Leggs sought certification as a nonincumbent judicial candidate for the
Wayne Probate Court for the 2026 general election. Davis is a Wayne County
registered voter who supports Leggs’s candidacy. On April 21, 2026, Leggs filed
a combined Affidavit of Identity (AOI) and Affidavit of Constitutional
Qualifications with [the Wayne County Clerk (the Clerk)]. Leggs also submitted
nominating petitions containing at least 4,993 total signatures.[2] Leggs needed
1 Leggs v Secretary of State, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 20, 2026
(Docket No. 382065).
2 In a footnote, the Court of Claims clarified: “Plaintiffs assert in the complaint that Leggs
submitted 4,993 total signatures. According to a May 28, 2026 Staff Report, the total number of
signatures submitted was 5,011.”

-- 1 of 13 --

-2-
4,000 signatures from qualified registered voters to become a certified candidate.
On April 28, 2026, a man named Matthew Wilk challenged the validity of 2,390
signatures on Leggs’s nominating petitions for various reasons. [Clerk] staff
investigated the challenge. On May 28, 2026, a Staff Report was issued, finding
that of the 5,011 signatures submitted, 4,889 signatures were reviewable after
incomplete signatures were omitted and disqualified signatures were removed. The
[Clerk’s] staff further found that of the 4,889 reviewable signatures, 544 signatures
were of individuals not registered to vote or not registered in the district, 264 were
duplicates, and 118 had other errors or miscellaneous identifying issues. Therefore,
the total number of valid signatures was 3,973, which was 27 signatures short of
the 4,000-signature requirement. Plaintiffs allege that Leggs contacted the [Clerk]
that same day regarding errors she perceived in the Staff Report.
On June 3, 2026, [the Clerk] adopted the Staff Report in a written letter (the
Final Decision). In the Final Decision, [the Clerk] explained the findings in the
Staff Report and noted, “Additionally, the regular validation review outside of the
challenge, found in total 3,661 valid signatures.” In other words, Leggs’s
nominating petitions were 339 valid signatures short of the 4,000-signature
threshold. Therefore, [the Clerk] concluded, “I hereby determine the nominating
petitions are insufficient in number to allow candidate [Leggs’s] name to appear
on the ballot for the August 4, 2026, Primary Election for the office of Judge of
Probate Court, Wayne County – Regular Term, Non-Incumbent.” Plaintiffs allege
that, within the next few days, Davis then became involved in the matter and sent
an e-mail to Wayne County Director of Elections Gregory Maher on Leggs’s
behalf. It is unclear from the record whether further communications occurred
between Leggs and the [Clerk’s] Office.
In an appeal to the SOS dated June 8, 2026, Leggs asked the SOS to (1)
vacate and reverse the May 28, 2026 Staff Report, (2) vacate and reverse the June
3, 2026 Final Decision, and (3) determine and declare that Leggs’s nominating
petitions contained a sufficient number of valid signatures for her to be certified as
a candidate. Leggs argued that her nominating petitions contained a sufficient
number of valid signatures. To support her request for review, Leggs claimed that
26 signatures that were invalidated due to signature or address issues were later
resolved. She claimed that 90 signatures were invalidated as associated with
“nonregistered voters” who were later found to be registered in the jurisdiction.
She claimed that 46 signatures identified as having miscellaneous issues were later
resolved. Thus, Leggs claimed these 162 signatures should have been rehabilitated.
Leggs argued the findings in the Final Decision were inconsistent with the findings
in the Staff Report and must be vacated. She further argued that the Final Decision
failed to list and code every reviewable signature and that the Final Decision failed
to account for all signatures. However, plaintiffs have not presented evidence that
Leggs provided the SOS with the Petition Signed Report that she alleges
accompanied the Final Decision to support her claim that the Final Decision did not
incorporate all the signatures.

-- 2 of 13 --

-3-
On June 24, 2026, Jonathan Brater, the Director of the Bureau of Elections
(BOE), provided Leggs with a letter outlining the SOS’s decision. Director Brater
explained:
In your appeal you request review of 162 specific signatures
identified in a worksheet attached as Exhibit D. After review of
your petitions, Wayne County determined that you had 3,661 valid
signatures. Even if you successfully rehabilitated all 162 of the
signatures identified in your appeal you would still have only 3,823
valid signatures. In order to be certified as a candidate for Wayne
County Probate Court Judge, 4,000 valid signatures must be
submitted. MCL 168.544f. Accordingly, it was not necessary for
the Department to process your appeal because you did not appeal a
sufficient number of signatures to reverse Wayne County’s
determination of insufficiency.
Director Brater further explained that although Leggs claimed she was only
27 signatures short of the required 4,000 threshold, Leggs was relying on the Staff
Report, which addressed a specific challenge to her nominating petitions, rather
than the [Clerk’s] Final Decision, which was based on a regular validation review
independent of the challenge.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 13, 2026. Plaintiff Davis [wa]s
proceeding pro se, and Leggs [wa]s represented by counsel. On the same day that
they filed this lawsuit, plaintiffs moved for an evidentiary hearing and to conduct
limited discovery on the issue of “how the [Clerk] came to the number of signatures
in her ‘Final Determination,’ which differed from the [Clerk’s] ‘Staff Report.’ ”
Plaintiffs ask[ed] [the Court of Claims] to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the
authenticity of the [Clerk’s] Staff Report and Final Decision. Plaintiffs also
s[ought] to issue subpoenas to [Clerk] staff for their testimony on the discrepancy
between the number of valid signatures indicated in the Staff Report and in the
Final Decision.
[The Court of Claims] granted expedited consideration of this matter. On
July 28, 2026, the SOS moved for summary disposition. Plaintiffs amended their
complaint as a matter of right under MCR 2.118(A)(1), adding new factual
allegations and new legal claims. Plaintiffs responded to the motion for summary
disposition on the same day, arguing that the filing of the amended complaint
mooted the pending motion for summary disposition.
As a result, [the Court of Claims] issued an amended scheduling order.
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint include[d]: (1) a claim for declaratory relief
premised on the theory that the SOS did not provide Leggs with a meaningful
appellate review and that Leggs submitted at least the minimum number of valid
signatures to be certified as a judicial candidate (Count I); (2) a claim for
declaratory relief based on the theory that the Judicial Elective Office Manual (upon
which the [Clerk] allegedly relied) is void because it was not promulgated as a Rule

-- 3 of 13 --

-4-
(Count II); (3) a claim for violation of procedural due process on the basis that the
SOS failed to conduct a meaningful appellate review of Leggs’s appeal (Count III);
(4) a mandamus claim to require the SOS to perform a full review of Leggs’s appeal
(Count IV); and (5) a mandamus claim to compel the SOS to “advise and direct”
the [Clerk] to certify Leggs’s candidacy (Count V).
The SOS moved for summary disposition of the amended complaint under
MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) on August 7, 2026. The SOS first raise[d] the doctrine
of laches, arguing that plaintiffs’ amended complaint [wa]s subject to dismissal in
its entirety. The SOS argue[d] that plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the
intent of mooting the SOS’s pending motion for summary disposition and of
“intentionally derail[ing]” [the Court of Claims’] ability to decide the lawsuit on an
emergency basis. The SOS argue[d] she was prejudiced by having a shortened
response time in this Court and a shortened appeal period in advance of the
September 4, 2026 printing deadline for general election ballots.
On the merits, the SOS argue[d] that plaintiffs [had] failed to state a claim
on which relief may be granted for purposes of Count I of the amended complaint
because Leggs challenged the determination regarding only 162 signatures, which
would not be enough to overturn the [Clerk’s] decision. The SOS argue[d] that
plaintiffs ha[d] not shown a clear legal right to additional review by the SOS or that
the SOS ha[d] a legal obligation to “advise and direct” the [Clerk] to perform her
duties. The SOS argue[d] that plaintiffs’ new claims also lack[ed] merit to the
extent they [we]re not barred by laches. The SOS attached to her motion for
summary disposition an affidavit signed by Brater. In response to plaintiffs’
emergency motion for an evidentiary hearing and limited discovery, the SOS
argued, in relevant part, that the motion should be denied as moot because
plaintiffs’ legal claims fail[ed] as a matter of law for the reasons advanced in the
motion for summary disposition.
Plaintiffs responded to the motion for summary disposition, arguing, in
relevant part, that laches d[id] not apply in this case because plaintiffs’ original and
amended complaints were both filed well in advance of the September 19, 2026
overseas mailing deadline for the general election ballots, and the SOS ha[d] not
demonstrated prejudice. Plaintiffs further argue[d] that laches d[id] not apply
because this matter involve[d] the interpretation of a statute, and the SOS ha[d]
unclean hands due to her alleged violation of her statutory duties. On the merits,
plaintiffs argue[d], in relevant part, that the SOS violated her statutory duties under
MCL 168.552(6) by failing to provide Leggs with a meaningful review of her
appeal of the WCC’s Staff Report and Final Decision, entitling plaintiffs to a
declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus compelling the SOS to conduct a
“full review” of Leggs’s appeal and direct the [Clerk] to certify Leggs as a judicial
candidate.
Plaintiffs’ overarching argument [wa]s that the [Clerk] erroneously
concluded that there were 3,661 valid signatures. Plaintiffs contend[ed] that the
additional signatures invalidated by the WCC account[ed] for a total of 163

-- 4 of 13 --

-5-
signatures, and when added to the 3,661 figure, the total is 3,824 signatures, which
is not consistent with the 3,973 figure in the Staff Report. Although plaintiffs’
argument [wa]s difficult to decipher, they appear[ed] to argue that when the
signatures [we]re reconciled appropriately, the total number of valid signatures
Leggs presented to the SOS with her appeal exceeded the 4,000-signature threshold.
Plaintiffs also challenge[d] whether the SOS c[ould] rely on MCR 2.116(C)(8) to
support summary disposition given [her] reliance on Director Brater’s affidavit and
argue[d] that summary disposition would be premature under MCR 2.116(C)(10)
because discovery ha[d] not been conducted. Plaintiffs support[ed] their response
with Leggs’s affidavit. The SOS[ ]replied. [Footnotes omitted; some alterations in
original.]
After dispensing with oral argument, the Court of Claims granted defendant summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and denied plaintiffs’ motion for an evidentiary hearing and/or
limited discovery. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
On appeal, plaintiffs raise several claims of error, which implicate differing standards of
review. A trial court’s ruling regarding a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo.
Heaton v Benton Constr Co, 286 Mich App 528, 531; 780 NW2d 618 (2009). As our Supreme
Court explained in Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119-120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999):
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the
complaint. All well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and construed
in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may
be granted only where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter
of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery. When deciding
a motion brought under this section, a court considers only the pleadings.
[Quotation marks and citations omitted.]
However, for these purposes, any written instruments duly attached to the pleadings, or referred to
in them, are properly considered as part of the pleadings. See MCR 2.113(C); El-Khalil v
Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 163; 934 NW2d 665 (2019).3
With regard to mandamus, as this Court 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
3 When a trial court considers “material outside the pleadings, this Court will construe the motion
as having been granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10).” Hughes v Region VII Area Agency on
Aging, 277 Mich App 268, 273; 744 NW2d 10 (2007). In this instance, however, the Court of
Claims expressly held that it was not considering Brater’s affidavit as part of its analysis. Hence,
we conclude that review is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(8).

-- 5 of 13 --

-6-
any such duty. Related issues of statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo.
Contrastingly, because mandamus is a discretionary writ, we review for an abuse
of discretion a trial court’s decision regarding whether to grant mandamus relief.
[Quotation marks and citations omitted.]
“A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome falling outside the range of
reasonable and principled outcomes, or when it makes an error of law.” Forton v St Clair Co Pub
Guardian, 339 Mich App 73, 82; 981 NW2d 103 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“[W]e review de novo a trial court’s decision regarding whether to apply an equitable
doctrine, such as laches.” City of Fraser v Almeda Univ, 314 Mich App 79, 100; 886 NW2d 730
(2016). Any related factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut
Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 444; 761 NW2d 846 (2008). “A decision is clearly erroneous if,
although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake was made.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
A. LACHES
Plaintiffs first contend that the Court of Claims erred by holding that Counts II and III in
the amended complaint were barred by laches. We disagree.
As our Supreme Court explained in Pub Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495,
507; 550 NW2d 515 (1996):
The doctrine of laches is a tool of equity that may remedy the general
inconvenience resulting from delay in the assertion of a legal right which it is
practicable to assert. It is applicable in cases in which there is an unexcused or
unexplained delay in commencing an action and a corresponding change of material
condition that results in prejudice to a party. [Quotations marks and citations
omitted.]
As an equitable doctrine, its propriety in a given case is necessarily a fact-specific inquiry.
Henderson v Connolly’s Estate, 294 Mich 1, 19; 292 NW 543 (1940). From the common law, it
has been recognized that “[n]othing can call forth th[e] court into activity, but conscience, good
faith, and reasonable diligence; where these are wanting, the court is passive, and does nothing.”
Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Likewise, “[t]he rule that ‘equity aids the vigilant, and
not those who slumber on their rights,’ is designed to promote diligence on the part of suitors; to
discourage laches, by making it a bar to relief; and to prevent the enforcement of stale demands of
all kinds, wholly independent of the statutory periods of limitation.” Id. (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court of Claims’ application of laches in this case “not only defies
logic and common sense,” but is also “contrary to the ‘relation-back’ doctrine set forth under MCR
2.118(D).” As plaintiffs acknowledge in their brief, however, the relation-back doctrine is used to
determine whether an action is time-barred under the applicable statutory limitations period. See,

-- 6 of 13 --

-7-
e.g., Ulrich v Farm Bureau Ins, 288 Mich App 310, 322; 792 NW2d 408 (2010) (“The relation-
back doctrine applies to amended pleadings and may affect the analysis of the timeliness of an
action for purposes of compliance with statutes of limitations.”). Although there is “a relationship
between laches and the statute of limitations,” they are nevertheless distinct legal concepts and are
capable of establish differing temporal limits on a given claim. See Tenneco, 281 Mich App at
456-457. Put simply, because the Court of Claims did not rule that plaintiffs’ claims were time-
barred under the applicable limitations period, the “relation back” doctrine is irrelevant here.
Assuming that the claims at issue were not time-barred under the applicable limitations period, it
does not follow that they were also timely asserted for purposes of the equitable doctrine of laches.
See id. (“If laches applies, a claim may be barred even though the period of limitations has not run.
The application of laches can shorten, but never lengthen, the analogous period of limitations.”).
See also Luna Pier Truck Depot, LLC v Prime Fin, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the
Court of Appeals, issued June 24, 2021 (Docket No. 353859) (Luna Pier); slip op at 6 (collecting
authorities for the proposition that “our Supreme Court has—on several occasions—applied laches
as a bar against unseasonable motions or other requests for relief made after the commencement
of a case”).4
Plaintiffs also argue that it is improper to apply an equitable doctrine, such as laches, when
“statutory provisions . . . control[.]” In support of this argument, they cite various authorities for
the proposition that a court’s equitable powers should not be used to circumvent statutory language
or effectively override the Legislature’s policymaking prerogative. See, e.g., Senters v Ottawa
Sav Bank, FSB, 443 Mich 45, 55-56; 503 NW2d 639 (1993) (“Courts of equity, . . . as well as law,
must apply legislative enactments in accordance with the plain intent and language used by the
legislature. Where, as in the present case, a statute is applicable to the circumstances and dictates
the requirements for relief by one party, equity will not interfere.”) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). What plaintiffs fail to recognize, however, is that in this case, the Court of Claims did
not employ laches in order to reach a different substantive result than that dictated by statute;
rather, the Court of Claims simply held that the two new counts in the amended complaint were
barred by laches as a result of undue delay in their assertion—a determination that had nothing to
do with the substantive merits of the claims. Again, it is well-settled that laches may bar a claim
“even though the period of limitations has not run,” Tenneco, 281 Mich App at 456, and “courts
may apply the doctrine of laches to bar actions at law,” not just equitable claims, City of Fraser,
314 Mich App at 102. In any event, “mandamus and declaratory relief are themselves equitable
in nature[.]” Davis v Secretary of State, 346 Mich App 445, 465; 12 NW3d 653 (2023). Moreover,
our Legislature has expressly recognized that laches is applicable in the context of election-related
matters like this one. See MCL 691.1031 (“In a civil action brought in any court of this state
affecting elections, dates of elections, candidates, qualifications of candidates, ballots or questions
on ballots, . . . there is a rebuttable presumption of laches if the action is commenced less than 45
4 Although Luna Pier is, as an unpublished decision, not binding here, see In re CADP, 341 Mich
App 370, 386; 990 NW2d 386 (2022), we do not cite it as binding authority in its own right but
rather as a reference to several decisions of our Supreme Court that are binding on this Court under
the doctrine of vertical stare decisis, see generally In re AGD, 327 Mich App 332, 339-340; 933
NW2d 751 (2019) (discussing vertical stare decisis).

-- 7 of 13 --

-8-
days before the date of the election affected.”).5 Consequently, the fact that plaintiffs’ disputed
claims had foundations in positive, statutory law did not preclude the Court of Claims from
applying laches as a bar to those claims.
Plaintiffs further argue that the Court of Claims erred in ruling that defendant had carried
her burden of showing sufficient prejudice to warrant the application of laches. It is true that, “[t]o
successfully assert laches as an affirmative defense, a defendant must demonstrate prejudice
occasioned by the delay.” Nykoriak v Napoleon, 334 Mich App 370, 382; 964 NW2d 895 (2020)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). It is also true that “[t]he defendant bears the burden of
proving this resultant prejudice.” Penrose v McCullough, 308 Mich App 145, 154; 862 NW2d
674 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In cases affecting public interests, however,
prejudice to such interests is also a germane consideration. See, e.g., Kipp v Van Wagoner, 286
Mich 202, 210; 281 NW 592 (1938) (“Laches is a good equitable defense . . . ; and delay for an
unreasonable length of time, when coupled with either the fact that defendant has incurred great
expense relying upon such acquiescence or with the fact that the interests of the public have
become involved, will ordinarily be held to constitute laches and a good defense.”) (emphasis
added).
In this case, we perceive no error in the Court of Claims’ conclusion that defendant carried
her burden of demonstrating the requisite prejudice. “[L]egal challenges that affect elections are
especially prone to causing profound harm to the public and to the integrity of the election process
the closer in time those challenges are made to the election, making laches especially appropriate
to apply in such matters.” Davis, 346 Mich App at 462. “Election-law cases have very concrete
deadlines that are necessary to facilitate the printing and distribution of ballots,” and “[t]he current
process provides very little time” for courts to review the often “substantial and complex questions
of law, which generally require extensive briefing and cannot properly be resolved in a matter of
days.” Johnson v Bd of State Canvassers, 509 Mich 1015, 1016 (2022) (ZAHRA, J., concurring in
the denial of leave). Because election officials require “a reasonable amount of time . . . to comply
with the mechanics and complexities of our election laws,” “[c]ourts can reasonably endeavor to
avoid unnecessarily precipitat[ing] changes that would result in immense administrative
difficulties for election officials.” Davis, 346 Mich App at 462 (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In recognition of the emergent nature of this election dispute, on the same day that plaintiffs
initiated this action in the Court of Claims—July 13, 2026—they also filed their “emergency”
motion for an evidentiary hearing and limited discovery, in which they argued, in pertinent part:
“This election-related matter MUST be scheduled for a hearing on an expedited basis because the
ballot printing deadlines for the November 3, 2026 general election are the first week of
September 2026.” Nevertheless, plaintiffs then waited 17 days before filing their amended
5 Here, this rebuttable presumption is inapplicable, given that the disputed election is in November
2026 and that plaintiffs commenced this action on July 13, 2026. But “this does not mean that
laches does not apply as a matter of law. Although there is no rebuttable presumption of laches in
this case, the doctrine may still apply.” Nykoriak v Napoleon, 334 Mich App 370, 383; 964 NW2d
895 (2020).

-- 8 of 13 --

-9-
complaint, which stated two new claims. In most civil actions, such a delay would likely be trivial,
causing the defense and the public little or no prejudice. Indeed, in many civil actions, the
defendant(s) may not have been served with process—let alone have appeared and answered the
complaint—within 17 days of the filing of the initial complaint. See, e.g., MCR 2.102(D)
(providing that a “summons expires 91 days after the date the summons is issued”). But in an
election case like this one, where the parties are fully aware at the outset that time is of the essence,
a delay of 17 days in asserting new claims can result in extreme prejudice, both to the opposing
party and to public interests. During the 17-day delay in the case at bar, defendant prepared and
filed a motion for summary disposition, which, of course, addressed only the claims and allegations
in the initial complaint. Only afterward did plaintiffs file their amended complaint, accompanied
by a response to defendant’s motion for summary disposition in which plaintiffs asserted that that
motion had been rendered moot by the amended complaint. In that respect, plaintiffs were entirely
correct; their decision to delay 17 days had, in fact, mooted defendant’s motion for summary
disposition, nullifying much of the work performed by defendant’s counsel at public expense.
More importantly, the delay also necessarily resulted in defendant having 17 fewer days to respond
to the new claims on the merits, in the Court of Claims having considerably less time to issue its
decision on the merits in advance of the rapidly approaching election deadlines, and in this Court
and our Supreme Court having less time and opportunity to engage in appellate review of any
ensuing appeals—all in the midst of an election cycle during which, to our knowledge, all of those
entities are attempting to process an extremely high volume of emergency election challenges and
appeals. As the litigants who initiated this action and requested “emergency” expedited
consideration from both the Court of Claims and this Court, plaintiffs’ complaint that the Court of
Claims erred by refusing to allow them to needlessly delay those proceedings—despite the
attendant prejudice to defendant and the interests of the public—rings hollow. As such, we
perceive no error in the Court of Claims’ application of laches.
Finally, plaintiffs argue that the Court of Claims erred by failing to recognize that defendant
had “unclean hands,” which rendered defendant undeserving of any equitable relief, including the
protection of laches. This is a rehashed version of a circular argument that has been previously
raised in this Court without success—i.e., that election officials who have allegedly failed to
comply with their statutory duties necessarily come to court with soiled hands because it is
unlawful to fail to comply with legal duties. See Davis, 346 Mich App at 463-465. For the same
basic reasons that this Court previously rejected that argument, we do so again here. “Equity does
not require complete blamelessness but rather that a party has not acted in bad faith regarding the
matter in which relief is sought[.]” Id. at 463. Even if proven, an election official’s failure to
comply with a positive statutory duty may result from a reasonable misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of the governing statutes, and “[t]he duty to interpret and apply the law belongs
to the courts.” Id. Moreover, as will be discussed below, we conclude that plaintiffs have failed
to carry their burden of demonstrating that defendant had a clear legal duty to perform her disputed
review in the manner plaintiffs have specified. Hence, we agree with the Court of Claims that

-- 9 of 13 --

-10-
plaintiffs failed to show that defendant engaged in the sort of misconduct that might warrant a
finding of unclean hands. See id. at 463-464 & n 12.6
B. SUMMARY DISPOSITION UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(8)
Plaintiffs next contend that the Court of Claims erred by granting defendant summary
disposition to defendant on plaintiffs’ other counts—i.e., those that it did not dismiss as barred
under laches—pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We disagree.
1. COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
In Count I of the amended complaint, plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment (1) that
defendant had “deprived Plaintiff Shalanda Leggs of a meaningful appellate review of the . . .
Clerk’s ‘final determination’ of [Leggs’s] nominating petitions”; (2) that defendant “did not
comply with nor fulfil [her] statutory duties under MCL 168.552(6) and (13) of Michigan Election
Law with respect to [Leggs’s] timely appeal”; and (3) that Leggs’s “nominating petitions
contain[ed] the minimum number of 4,000 valid signatures for . . . Leggs to be certified by the . .
. Clerk to appear on the . . . ballot as a candidate for Judge of the Wayne County Probate Court.”
On the face of the pleadings, we agree with the Court of Claims that defendant was entitled to
summary disposition on this count.
Plaintiffs have cited no statute imposing a clear legal duty for defendant to engage in any
specific form of review in response to a challenge under MCL 168.552(6). This is presumably
because, as this Court recently recognized, the statutory scheme fails to specify the details of this
review process, leaving those details to the discretion of the involved officials. Drissman v Mich
Dep’t of State, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 380984); slip op at 3-
4. As such, plaintiffs were not entitled to a declaratory judgment that defendant had failed to
comply with her statutory duties or deprived Leggs of “meaningful review” under MCL
168.552(6). See Davis v Wayne Co Election Comm, 349 Mich App 355, 374-375; 28 NW3d 354
(2023) (“to the extent Davis sought a declaration that would impose duties that cannot be found in
the plain language of MCL 168.689, he was not entitled to any such declaration”).
Moreover, to the extent that plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment concerning Leggs’s
eligibility to be placed on the ballot, that request was merely duplicative of their request for a writ
of mandamus “compelling [defendant] to advise and direct the . . . Clerk and Wayne County
Election Commission that [Leggs’s] nominating petitions ha[d] a sufficient number of valid
signatures for . . . Leggs to be certified to appear on the . . . ballot.” As our Supreme Court recently
reaffirmed: “Claims for declaratory relief necessarily derive from claims for substantive relief
because declaratory relief lies only in cases of ‘actual controversy,’ and not merely for abstract
declarations of rights divorced from a factual context.” Attorney Gen v Eli Lilly & Co, ___ Mich
___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 165961) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
6 Having concluded that the Court of Claims did not err by holding that Counts II and III in the
amended complaint were barred by laches, we decline to analyze plaintiffs’ arguments concerning
the substantive merits of those two claims.

-- 10 of 13 --

-11-
Divorced from the underlying claim for a writ of mandamus, the requested declaratory judgment
about the number of valid signatures would have been nothing but an abstract declaration of rights
lacking any practical effect. See Attorney Gen v Bd of State Canvassers, 318 Mich App 242, 248;
896 NW2d 485 (2016) (“Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for a party seeking to compel action
by election officials.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). Accordingly, the
Court of Claims did not err by granting summary disposition to defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(8)
as to Count I.
2. COUNTS IV AND V – MANDAMUS
In Count IV of the amended complaint, plaintiffs requested
a writ of mandamus compelling [defendant] to conduct a full review of the . . .
Clerk’s “final determination” with respect to [Leggs’s] nomination [sic,
nominating] petitions in accordance with MCL 168.552(6) and (13) of Michigan
Election Law, which shall include determining the total number of valid signatures
. . . by utilizing the qualified voter file (QVF) to determine the genuineness of the
signatures.
On the other hand, in Count V of the amended complaint, plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus
“compelling” defendant “to advise and direct the . . . Clerk and Wayne County Election
Commission that [Leggs’s] nominating petitions ha[d] a sufficient number of valid signatures for”
Leggs to be certified for inclusion on the disputed ballot.
Contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal, we perceive no error in the Court of Claims’
dismissal of both requests for mandamus under MCR 2.116(C)(8). “Mandamus is a discretionary
writ and an extraordinary remedy.” Comm to Ban Fracking in Mich v Bd of State Canvassers, 335
Mich App 384, 394; 966 NW2d 742 (2021).
The writ is one of grace, and equitable principles apply. When deciding whether
to issue a writ of mandamus, a court should consider the germane conditions
existing at the time of hearing and determination rather than at the time of
institution of the proceeding. The primary purpose of the writ of mandamus is to
enforce duties created by law, where the law has established no specific remedy
and where, in justice and good government, there should be one. [Holliday v Bd of
State Canvassers, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No.
372267); slip op at 7 (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).]
To obtain relief in the form of mandamus, the plaintiff “must show that: (1) the plaintiff
has a clear, legal right to performance of the specific duty sought, (2) the defendant has a clear
legal duty to perform, (3) the act is ministerial, and (4) no other adequate legal or equitable remedy
exists that might achieve the same result.” Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co
Treasurer, 308 Mich App 498, 518; 866 NW2d 817 (2014). In this context, “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 519
(quotation marks and citation omitted). A “ministerial” act is, on the other hand, “one in which
the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to

-- 11 of 13 --

-12-
leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment.” Hillsdale Co Senior Servs, Inc v Hillsdale
Co, 494 Mich 46, 58; 832 NW2d 728 (2013) (emphasis added).
Again, plaintiffs have cited no statutory authority7 imposing a clear legal duty on defendant
to engage in a specific form of review in response to a challenge under MCL 168.552(6). Standing
alone, that failure is fatal to plaintiffs’ request for mandamus relief. See Kennedy v Secretary of
State, 515 Mich 893, 893-894 (2024) (“[P]laintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that
prescribes and defines a duty . . . nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this
specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with such precision and certainty as to
leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment. Thus, the plaintiff has not shown an
entitlement to this extraordinary relief [i.e., mandamus] . . . .”) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Consequently, we conclude that the Court of Claims correctly granted defendant
summary disposition of both mandamus counts as a matter of law on the face of the pleadings.
C. MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND/OR LIMITED DISCOVERY
Finally, given that the Court of Claims properly granted summary disposition of all claims
under MCR 2.116(C)(8), we reject plaintiffs’ argument that the Court of Claims erred by denying
their motion for an evidentiary hearing and/or limited discovery. See El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 160
(holding that summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(8) “when a claim is so
clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery”) (emphasis
added); Veritas Auto Machinery, LLC v FCA Int’l Operations, LLC, 335 Mich App 602, 608; 968
7 As the Court of Claims recognized, plaintiffs’ reliance on Wilcoxon v City of Detroit Election
Comm, 301 Mich App 619; 838 NW2d 183 (2013), is also misplaced because Wilcoxon is
materially distinguishable from the instant case. Indeed, we agree with the Court of Claims’
analysis entirely and, in lieu of attempting to reinvent that particular analytical wheel, simply adopt
it:
To support that the SOS had a duty to conduct a further investigation into
the number of valid signatures, plaintiffs rely on [Wilcoxon]. However, the central
issue in that case was that the defendants (the Detroit Election Commission and the
Detroit City Clerk), failed to give the plaintiff an official declaration of the findings
regarding the invalidation of the signatures in question. Thus, while the [Bureau of
Elections] later deemed the plaintiff’s appeal untimely, the Michigan Court of
Appeals concluded that the notice was not adequate to rise to the level of an official
declaration on the candidate’s petition signatures. Id. at 635. That issue is not
present in this case. There is no dispute that the [Clerk] provided a Final Decision
on June 3, 2026, and the SOS provided Leggs with a reasoned decision on review
that was not based purely on [] procedural constraints, such as timeliness. The
SOS’s decision on review in this matter was based on the lack of sufficient evidence
supporting Leggs’s request for review. This case is distinguishable from Wilcoxon.

-- 12 of 13 --

-13-
NW2d 1 (2021) (“[B]ecause a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is based on the pleadings, discovery
is not a consideration when a court determines whether to grant the motion.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
Because we perceive no error in the Court of Claims’ disputed rulings, we affirm. As the
prevailing party, defendant may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin
/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney
/s/ Mariam S. Bazzi

-- 13 of 13 --