“Partisan-Parity Standing” – Michigan Supreme Court Confers Standing on Major Political Parties to Enforce Election-Inspector Equality

Introduction

The case of Michigan Republican Party & Republican National Committee v. Davina Donahue et al., decided by the Michigan Supreme Court on 14 July 2025, addresses a recurring pre-election question: Who may sue when local election officials allegedly fail to appoint an equal number of election inspectors from each major political party as required by MCL 168.674(2)?

The Republican Party (state and national committees) contended that the City of Flint’s election officials did not maintain “partisan parity” among precinct inspectors during the 2022 general election. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that the party lacked standing, casting doubt on whether anyone could police the statutory parity mandate. The Supreme Court reversed, declaring that major political parties themselves possess a “special injury or right” sufficient to confer standing. The matter is remanded for adjudication on the merits.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, in lieu of granting full leave to appeal, summarily reversed the lower courts’ dismissal for lack of standing.
It held that the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee have standing to seek declaratory relief and mandamus compelling compliance with MCL 168.674(2).
Standing arises because:
- The statutory scheme expressly involves major political parties in supplying inspector lists (MCL 168.673a).
- This involvement creates a “special right or substantial interest” distinct from the public at large (citing Lansing School Education Ass’n).
The Court rejected the view that only county party chairs or no one at all could sue, concluding that denying parties standing would thwart legislative intent to ensure bipartisan oversight.
The case is sent back to Genesee Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with the order; jurisdiction is not retained.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Lansing School Education Ass’n v. Lansing Board of Education, 487 Mich 349 (2010) – Established Michigan’s modern, prudential standing doctrine: a litigant has standing if (a) it has a traditional cause of action, (b) meets declaratory-judgment requirements, or (c) shows a special injury/substantial interest distinct from the general public.
➔ The Supreme Court relied heavily on prong (c) to find “special interest” standing for political parties.
Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v. Saugatuck Township, 509 Mich 561 (2022) – Reiterated de novo review of standing questions; cited for standard of review.
El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 504 Mich 152 (2019) – Cited for the de novo standard when reviewing summary dispositions.
White v. Highland Park Election Commission, 312 Mich App 571 (2015) – Earlier panel held that only county party chairs could administratively challenge certain inspector appointments. The 2025 Court distinguished White as limited to its facts, emphasizing it never confronted the current “no-one-has-standing” conundrum.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The analysis proceeded in four steps:

Statutory Context – MCL 168.673a permits county party chairs to submit names for election inspectors. MCL 168.674(2) obliges election commissions to appoint, “as nearly as possible,” an equal number of inspectors from each major party.
Inquiry into Legislative Intent – Because political parties are purposefully woven into the appointment process, the Court inferred that the Legislature intended them to police compliance.
Application of Lansing Three-Part Test – • No express private right of action exists; • Declaratory-judgment criteria (MCR 2.605) are satisfied because a real controversy exists about statutory compliance; • Even if not, the parties have a “special right” — they supply the inspectors and thus are uniquely harmed by any parity violation.
Policy Consideration – Denying standing would make the parity mandate effectively unenforceable, undermining the very safeguard designed to bolster voter confidence.

3. Potential Impact on Future Litigation and Election Law

Clarified Enforcement Mechanism – This decision supplies a clear plaintiff class (major political parties) to bring parity challenges, resolving prior uncertainty.
Increased Election-Related Litigation – Parties may more readily seek mandamus or declaratory judgments if they perceive inspector imbalances.
Guidance for Lower Courts – Trial courts must now treat political parties as proper plaintiffs without separate proof of individualized harm whenever statutory rights integral to party functions are at stake.
Ripple Effect on Other Statutes – The “special interest” rationale could extend to other election provisions where parties play an embedded statutory role (e.g., poll-challenger credentials, canvassing boards).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Standing – The legal capacity to bring a lawsuit. Courts ask: “Are you the right person or entity to raise this issue?”
Declaratory Relief – A court declaration clarifying the rights or duties of parties without necessarily ordering action or awarding damages.
Mandamus – A court order compelling a government official to perform a clear legal duty.
Partisan Parity – Requirement that election inspectors (poll workers) from each major political party be appointed in equal numbers, guaranteeing bipartisan oversight.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s July 2025 order establishes a decisive principle: major political parties possess standing to enforce the statutory requirement of partisan parity among election inspectors. This “Partisan-Parity Standing” ensures that the Legislature’s commitment to bipartisan election administration is not an idle aspiration but an enforceable right. Practically, it empowers parties to act as guardians of balanced poll-staffing, likely augmenting both compliance and litigation activity in future elections. Beyond election law, the ruling reinforces Michigan’s flexible, interest-based standing doctrine, signaling that entities granted statutory roles will usually have court access to vindicate associated rights.