Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 168 / Act 116 of 1954
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.479 (2026)

Review of determination; mandamus, certiorari or other remedy; legal challenge to supreme court.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW


Act 116 of 1954


168.479 Review of determination; mandamus, certiorari or other remedy; legal challenge to supreme court.

Sec. 479.

    (1) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary and subject to subsection (2), 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.

    (2) If a person feels aggrieved by any determination made by the board of state canvassers regarding the sufficiency or insufficiency of an initiative petition, the person must file a legal challenge to the board's determination in the supreme court within 7 business days after the date of the official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the initiative petition or not later than 60 days before the election at which the proposal is to be submitted, whichever occurs first. Any legal challenge to the official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of an initiative petition has the highest priority and shall be advanced on the supreme court docket so as to provide for the earliest possible disposition.

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 608, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 2018

PopularName Notes:

Election Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case: Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Sec'y of State, 630 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Sec'y of State, 630 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 4× “The panel then dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for mandamus, holdingÔÇöon a ground not raised by the partiesÔÇöthat the matter is not ripe for this Court's consideration.”
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 922 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “MCL 168.479. 45 Accordingly, mandamus is the proper remedy for a party seeking to compel election officials to carry out their duties.”
Newsome v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 245 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “The fact that we have accepted this case for argument and decision is sufficient response to plaintiffs' final argument that mandamus is an appropriate remedy in this case.”
Massey v. Sec'y of State, 579 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “Should this proposal be adopted? No appeal was taken from the board’s action under MCL 168.479; MSA 6.1479. Plaintiffs argue that this statement of purpose has two deficiencies: first, it should have explicitly stated that the limitations on the terms for state legislative…”
Deleeuw v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 688 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “MCL 168.479. 3 Certainly the interest in having one’s signature on a petition carry the political import one intended rises to a level worthier of recognition than the recreational use of lands involved in Cleveland Cliffs.”
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration, & Fight for Equity By Any Means Necessary v. Bd. of State Canvassers Citizens, 262 Mich. App. 395 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Finally, plaintiff Citizens for United Michigan (CFUM) argues that the circuit court erred in denying its request for a declaratory judgment in addition to mandamus relief because MCL 168.479 states that persons aggrieved by a decision of the Board of State Canvassers “may have…”
Comm. to Ban Fracking in Michigan v. Bd of State Canvassers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 25× “Following defendant’s determination that the petition was insufficient, CBFM filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Michigan Supreme Court, asserting that our Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the action under MCL 168.479. CBFM claimed that it was entitled to…”
Mamie Graziano v. Dir. of Elections (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 20× “The Committee appealed the Court of Claims’ determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that “our Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under MCL 168.479 is actually nonexclusive because MCL 600.”
Mamie Graziano v. Dir. of Elections (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 20× “The Committee appealed the Court of Claims’ determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that “our Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under MCL 168.479 is actually nonexclusive because MCL 600.”
Citizens for Legislative Choice v. Miller, 993 F. Supp. 1041 (E.D. Mich. 1998). “Mich.Comp.Laws 168.479 provides, “Any person or persons, feeling themselves aggrieved by any determination made by said board, may have such determination reviewed by mandamus, certiorari, or other appropriate remedy in the supreme court.”
Stand up for Democracy v. Sec'y of State, 824 N.W.2d 220 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “MCL 168.479. 8 B This Court reviews de novo as questions of law whether a defendant has a clear legal duty to perform and whether a plaintiff has a clear legal right to the performance sought.”
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration v. Bd. of State Canvassers, 686 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Finally, plaintiff Citizens for United Michigan (CFUM) argues that the circuit court erred in denying its request for a declaratory judgment in addition to mandamus relief because MCL 168.479 states that persons aggrieved by a decision of the Board of State Canvassers "may have…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.479(1) — 5 cases
Comm. to Ban Fracking in Michigan v. Bd of State Canvassers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Following defendant’s determination that the petition was insufficient, CBFM filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Michigan Supreme Court, asserting that our Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the action under MCL 168.479. CBFM claimed that it was entitled to…”
Angelic Johnson v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2020).
Mamie Graziano v. Dir. of Elections (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The Committee appealed the Court of Claims’ determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that “our Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under MCL 168.479 is actually nonexclusive because MCL 600.”
Mamie Graziano v. Dir. of Elections (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The Committee appealed the Court of Claims’ determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that “our Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under MCL 168.479 is actually nonexclusive because MCL 600.”
Comm. to Ban Fracking in Michigan v. Bd of State Canvassers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.479(2) — 4 cases
Comm. to Ban Fracking in Michigan v. Bd of State Canvassers (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Following defendant’s determination that the petition was insufficient, CBFM filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Michigan Supreme Court, asserting that our Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the action under MCL 168.479. CBFM claimed that it was entitled to…”
Mamie Graziano v. Dir. of Elections (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The Committee appealed the Court of Claims’ determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that “our Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under MCL 168.479 is actually nonexclusive because MCL 600.”
Mamie Graziano v. Dir. of Elections (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “The Committee appealed the Court of Claims’ determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that “our Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under MCL 168.479 is actually nonexclusive because MCL 600.”
Angelic Johnson v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.