Page:Johnson v. Benson (162286) (2020) Order.pdf/9

9 present to us—I consider it imprudent to hear this matter, a conclusion only amplified by my view that it is irresponsible to continue holding out the possibility of a judicial solution to a political dispute that needs to be resolved with finality. Petitioners’ complaint casts more heat than light on the legal questions it gestures toward, and would not help us in providing a definitive interpretation of the law in this area. I therefore concur with our order denying petitioners relief.

, J. (dissenting).

Just two years ago, through the exercise of direct democracy and the constitutional initiative process, the people of Michigan amended our Constitution to expand greatly how Michigan residents may exercise their right to vote. Among the additions to the Michigan Constitution effected by what was then known as Ballot Proposal 2018-3 (Proposal 3) were provisions that: (i) require the Secretary of State automatically to register to vote all Michigan residents conducting certain business with the Secretary of State, unless the resident specifically declines registration; (ii) allow same-day registration with proof of Michigan residency; and (iii) permit no-reason absentee voting. Critics of Proposal 3 argued that these changes would increase opportunities for voter fraud and weaken the integrity of the electoral process, thereby placing in doubt the accuracy and integrity of Michigan’s election returns. Proponents responded that Proposal CProposal 3 [sic] would promote and ensure the accuracy and integrity of elections by constitutionally guaranteeing the right to audit the results.

In the wake of the very next election cycle to follow the adoption of these sweeping election reforms of 2018, petitioners filed an original action in this Court under Const 1963, art 6, § 4 and MCL 600.217(3) “seeking extraordinary writs of mandamus, prohibition, and declaratory and injunctive relief.” In support of their claims, petitioners invoke MCL 168.479, which specifies that “any person who feels aggrieved by any determination made by the board of state canvassers may have the determination reviewed by mandamus or other appropriate remedy in the supreme court.” Petitioners