Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County legal counsel urges application to attorney general after Court of Appeals ruling in Brandt dispute
Summary
After a Court of Appeals decision left key questions unresolved about whether Mark Brandt's incarceration vacated the District 2 seat under MCL 46.411, the Monroe County Board voted to follow counsel's advice and authorize pursuing an application to the state attorney general or other procedural steps to resolve the vacancy question.
The Monroe County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 18 to "follow the advice of counsel" and authorize county legal counsel to pursue the procedural steps recommended after a Court of Appeals ruling about former Commissioner Mark Brandt.
County legal counsel Phil Goldsmith summarized the Court of Appeals decision and told the board the central legal question is whether Brandt was a "qualified elector" on Jan. 1, 2025. Goldsmith said the appellate panel found the trial court had not addressed potentially dispositive issues and recommended either an application to the attorney general under quo warranto procedures or asking the trial court for leave to add a quo warranto count. "My legal opinion is, you have the authority to go into closed session, and... you should go into closed session to discuss these matters," Goldsmith said during the presentation, while also explaining the alternative procedural paths.
Why it matters: the outcome will determine whether Brandt's inability to take office by virtue of incarceration vacated the seat for the full term under MCL 46.411, and it affects whether a special election or other remedy is appropriate. Commissioners asked whether the board or the courts must resolve procedural gaps identified by the Court of Appeals; Goldsmith told commissioners the attorney general could issue an opinion or decline, after which the county could seek relief in circuit court.
Board action and next steps: Commissioner Liebens moved and the board approved a motion to "follow the advice of counsel as indicated on the record," authorizing counsel to file an application and proceed as recommended. The board's motion was recorded and carried on roll call.
Public reaction and process concerns: speakers during public comment asked for transparency and urged the board to return to court rather than negotiate a private settlement. Resident Helen Coras Harrigan urged a quo warranto action and stronger ethics rules to prevent similar uncertainty in the future. Goldsmith said the question remains one the courts must decide: "Was he a qualified elector on the date he was supposed to take office?" he said.
What happens now: Counsel will prepare and file the application to the attorney general or, if the attorney general declines, seek procedural relief in circuit court. The board did not vote to settle the litigation at the meeting; it authorized counsel to pursue the next legal step recommended in the Court of Appeals decision.
