Case Name: AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY v. SECRETARY OF STATE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-09-01
Citations: 397 Mich. 689
Docket Number: Docket No. 58834
Parties: AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY v SECRETARY OF STATE
Judges: Kavanagh, C. J., not participating.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 397
Pages: 689–714

Head Matter:
AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY v SECRETARY OF STATE
Docket No. 58834.
Decided September 1, 1976.
Opinion filed November 23, 1976.
On' application by defendants for leave to appeal the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The American Independent Party (Morse faction) filed a complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals against the Secretary of State and the Director of Elections seeking an order to place their faction’s slate of candidates on the 1976 general election ballot, or to place both their slate and the slate presented by the American Independent Party (Chapman faction) on the ballot. The Court of Appeals, Cavanagh, P. J., and Bronson and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., ¿J., ordered the defendants to include both factions on the 1976 general election ballot (Docket No. 29722). Defendants apply for leave to appeal. Held:
The American Independent Party is entitled to a column on the 1976 general election ballot, but because of intervening changes in the election code, case law requiring the placing of more than one slate of candidates for a political party on the general election ballot when there is a schism does not apply. The candidates placed in the column to which the party is entitled are those certified by the chairman and the secretary of the state convention. The Director of Elections correctly left to the American Independent Party the resolution of the intraparty dispute.
The order of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the complaint for mandamus is dismissed.
Justice Levin dissented on the ground that leave to appeal should have been denied. Alternatively, the case should have been remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding the nature of the dispute and determination whether, in the application of objective criteria, the court can decide which group was rightfully in control of the party, and for entry of an appropriate decree securing the right of the American Independent Party to have candidates for all offices for which nominations were made to appear on the ballot. The doctrine of judicial abstention in favor of resolution by internal party processes is premised on the assumption that those processes are available and that a resolution consistent with affirmation of the fundamental political right of access to the ballot can be obtained. In this case it appears that because the dispute arose at the highest level of the party it cannot be resolved through internal party processes. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Supreme Court to provide a meaningful remedy so that a minority faction does not preclude exercise by the majority of their electoral rights. A decision with "opinion to follow” does not comply with either the letter or the spirit of the constitutional requirement that a decision of the Supreme Court contain a statement of the reasons for decision. The opinion-writing process is an important part of the making of a decision and constitutes a crucial check on judicial oversight, error, and arbitrariness.
References for Points in Headnotes
fl] 26 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 208.
[2] 25 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 175
[3, 6] 25 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 126.
Determination of controversies within political party. 169 ALR 1281.
[4, 5] 26 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 215.
[7, 8] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 901.
[9] 26 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 220.
Remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion op the Court
1. Elections — Political Parties — Slate op Candidates.
The Michigan Election Law does not require the placing of more than one slate of candidates for each political party on the general election ballot (MCL 168.685; MSA 6.1685).
2. Elections — Political Parties — Slates of Candidates.
The Legislature has provided the means by which new political parties may obtain a column on the general election ballot; those candidates of a qualified political party placed in the party’s column are the candidates certified by the chairman and the secretary of the state convention of the party (MCL 168.685; MSA 6.1685).
3. Elections — Political Parties — Conventions—Intra-Party Disputes.
The convention of a political party is the proper forum for determining intraparty disputes; the political process should function free from judicial supervision unless infringement of constitutional rights is alleged.
Dissenting Opinion
Levin, J.
4. Elections — Access to Ballot — Fundamental Rights.
Access to the ballot is a fundamental right secured to the people by Federal and state Constitutions, and by statute.
5. Elections — Ballot—Courts—Justiciable Controversy.
A claim that election officials have declined to include on the ballot the name of a person duly nominated by a qualiñed political party presents a justiciable controversy which the courts have an obligation to adjudicate in discharge of their responsibility to protect the rights of political parties, candidates, and electors to have access to the ballot.
6. Elections — Ballot—Courts—Intra-Party Dispute.
It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to provide a meaningful remedy so that a minority faction of a political party does not preclude exercise by the majority of their electoral rights where internal party processes to resolve the dispute are not available because the dispute arose at the highest state level of the party.
7. Courts — Appeal and Error — Decision of the Court.
A decision of the Supreme Court issued in an order with "opinion to follow” does not comply with either the letter or spirit of the constitutional requirement that a decision of the Supreme Court contain a statement of the reasons for decision (Const 1963, art 6, §6).
8. Courts — Appeal and Error — Opinions.
Opinion writing is an important part of the process of making a decision in the Supreme Court, constituting a crucial check on judicial oversight, error, and arbitrariness; to decide before engaging in opinion writing is to ignore the constitutional requirement and the importance of the opinion-writing process which may necessitate a search for post facto reasons and rationalizations to justify the decision already made (Const 1963, art 6, § 6).
9. Mandamus — Elections—Ballot.
An action for mandamus lies to secure the right of a political party, candidate or electors to have a candidate’s name appear on the ballot; no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws.
Vandervoort, Cooke, McFee, Christ, Carpenter & Fisher (by Paul R. Levy) for plaintiff.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General Solomon H. Bienenfeld, First Assistant, and Mark E. Blumer, Assistant Attorney General, for defendants.

Opinion:
ORDER
Entered September 1,1976. — Reporter.
On order of the Court, defendants-appellants' emergency application for leave to appeal the August 25, 1976 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, it is hereby ordered that the Court of Appeals is reversed and the plaintiffs' complaint for mandamus is dismissed. This order is issued on an emergent basis to enable defendants to prepare ballots on time for the forthcoming election. Opinion to follow.