Whether defendant’s Affidavit of Identity (AOI) was facially proper; The Michigan Election Law (MCL 168.1 et seq.); Stand Up For Democracy v. Secretary of State; Berry v. Garret; Attestation requirements; MCL 168.31; Whether the AOI was defective where the signature date differed from the notarization date; MCL 168.558(1), (2), & (4); MCL 55.285; People v. Sloan; Rataj v. City of Romulus; Holmes v. Michigan Capital Med. Ctr.; Delegation of authority to the Secretary of State to issue instructions for the conduct of elections & prescribe uniform forms; Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration v. Board of State Canvassers

The court held that defendant’s AOI was not defective even though the signature date differed from the notarization date. Thus, it reversed and vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded for entry of an order directing that her candidacy be certified to the board of election commissioners. The trial court disqualified defendant from placement on the 8/4/20 primary election ballot for the office of Ypsilanti Township Clerk, finding her AOI was facially defective because she failed to strictly comply with the Secretary of State’s attestation instructions. On appeal, the court held that “as long as the AOI has been signed by the candidate and notarized in a manner allowed under MCL 168.31, the AOI strictly complies with the attestation requirements implicit in MCL 168.558 and the clerk has a legal duty to certify the affiant to the board of election commissioners for placement on the ballot.” Here, there was “no question that [defendant] signed her” AOI, and “no question that the notarization on the AOI is facially compliant with MCL 55.285(1)(b), (4), (6)(c), which authorizes a notary to witness and attest to a signature made in the presence of the notary.” The notary attested in that notarization that she signed her AOI before him on 4/21/20. As such, she “strictly complied with the attestation requirement” and the trial court “erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.” The court noted that the Secretary of State’s instructions “do not have the force of law.” Moreover, under the instructions, “the entry of a date by the affiant candidate is not an express impediment to rendering the writing a proper and valid affidavit, as while they instruct the person to ‘read, sign, and date’ the attestation, they also provide that the affidavit is not complete until it has been ‘signed and notarized,’ with no mention of the affiant candidate’s entry of a date. And MCL 55.285 does not require a notary to attest to the accuracy of the date affixed to the writing by the affiant. Although the Secretary of State may advise a candidate to date the AOI at the time of signing,” the court could not “conclude that the Secretary of State may create an impediment to the ballot by imposing a date requirement not sanctioned by the Legislature or necessary to the establishment of a proper and valid affidavit.” Holding defendant “to strict compliance with the requirements of MCL 168.558,” the court concluded that she “filed a facially-compliant AOI for purposes of MCL 168.558.”