Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
July 31, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack,
Chief Justice
David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem
160907-8 & (74)
Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Richard H. Bernstein
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF Elizabeth T. Clement
MICHIGAN, MICHIGANDERS FOR FAIR Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices
AND TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS,
HENRY MAYERS, VALERIYA
EPSHTEYN, and BARRY RUBIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and
SENATE and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Intervenors-Appellants,
v SC: 160907
COA: 350938
Court of Claims: 19-000084-MM
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________________________/
SENATE and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v SC: 160908
COA: 351073
Court of Claims: 19-000092-MZ
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
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
2
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 (1920), and compare Personhood Nevada v Bristol,
126 Nev 599 (2010), and Poulton v Cox, 368 P3d 844 (Utah, 2016), with Meyer v Grant,
486 US 414, 417 n 2 (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
___ (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 (2011) (vacating this Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ opinions because the
issue was moot), citing United States v Munsingwear, Inc, 340 US 36, 39-40 (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 (2002).
MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).
I would not direct the parties and the proposed intervenors to file supplemental
briefs.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
July 31, 2020
b0728
Clerk