A three-judge panel found in an unpublished opinion Tuesday that the Port Huron City Charter's process for vetting initiatives would "drag out" approval and block marijuana advocacy group Progress for Michigan from getting its initiative on the ballot even though it followed the state-mandated timeline.
Because the group met the state's deadlines, Port Huron's "lengthy approval process cannot be used to effectively keep the proposal off the November 3, 2020 general election ballot," the judges found in a per curiam opinion.
The opinion reversed a lower court's decision tossing the lawsuit, which aimed to compel the clerk's office to immediately certify the initiative. Port Huron officials had argued the group was seeking an end-run around the city charter.
The appellate court reached the opposite conclusion, finding it was "abundantly clear" that the state statute laying out election filing deadlines "supersedes any and all conflicting provisions of law or charter." By strictly enforcing the city charter, Port Huron officials had illegally moved up the submission date for ballot initiatives, the judges found.
Michigan's marijuana laws allow municipalities to opt out of recreational sales. Port Huron is one of 1,400 communities to do so, according to a list maintained by the state cannabis regulator.
Progress for Michigan submitted its petition signatures to the city clerk July 28, according to the opinion. After passing legal muster with the city attorney's office, the measure would need to be certified by the city clerk and then considered by the city council.
The group sued Port Huron City Clerk Cyndee Jonseck in August after realizing the process would "almost certainly" mean the proposal wouldn't be certified in time for the Nov. 3 election, according to the opinion. The suit argued the city charter's timeline was in clear conflict with Michigan election law.
Port Huron countered that the petition was submitted too late to be considered by the city council as mandated by the city charter. The trial court agreed, tossing the case in early September, according to the opinion.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
Judges Colleen A. O'Brien, Mark J. Cavanagh and Kathleen Jansen sat on the panel.
Progress for Michigan is represented by Douglas E. Mains of Honigman LLP.
Cyndee Jonseck is represented by Gary A. Fletcher of Fletcher Fealko Shoudy & Francis PC.
The case is Progress for Michigan v. Cyndee Jonseck, case number 354726, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
--Editing by Abbie Sarfo.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
