STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM

ELIZABETH ABDNOUR,
Appellant; Docket No. 21- -AA

v. Hon.

INGHAM COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION,

Appellee.

Karen Truszkowski (P56929)

TEMPERANCE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
Attorney for Appellant
503 Mall Court #131
Lansing, MI 48912
Phone: (844) 534-2560
Fax: (800) 531-6527
karen@temperancelegalgroup.com

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Sponsor-Appellant Elizabeth Abdnour (“Appellant”) claims an appeal as of right under

MCL 168.952 from the determination by the Ingham County Election Commission (“Appellee”)
made December 6, 2021, that Appellant’s proposed petition language either was not sufficiently
“clear” pursuant to 168.952(1)(c) or lacked a “specified outcome.”

Dated: December 16, 2021

Elizabeth Abdnour
Appellant

______________________________
Karen Truszkowski
Attorney for Appellant

1
 STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM

ELIZABETH ABDNOUR,
Appellant; Docket No. 21- -AA

v. Hon.

INGHAM COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION,

Appellee.

Karen Truszkowski (P56929)

TEMPERANCE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
Attorney for Appellant
503 Mall Court #131
Lansing, MI 48912
Phone: (844) 534-2560
Fax: (800) 531-6527
karen@temperancelegalgroup.com

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the

transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint.

COMPLAINT OF APPEAL OF INGHAM COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF DECEMBER 6, 2021

Elizabeth Abdnour, by and through her attorney, Karen Truszkowski, states her complaint

of appeal pursuant to MCL 168.952(6); MCL 168.1, et seq.; MCR 7.104; and MCR 7.105, as

follows.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Appellant Elizabeth Abdnour (“Appellant”) is an individual and sponsor of a recall petition

seeking to recall Brandon Betz from Lansing City Council, Ward 1, due to his threats and

racial harassment of a constituent on February 4, 2021.

2. Appellee Ingham County Election Commission (“Commission”) is a commission created

pursuant to MCL 168.23 and acting pursuant to MCL 168.952, et seq.

2
3. This complaint of appeal is brought pursuant to the Michigan Election Law of 1954, as

amended, MCL 168.1 et seq., MCL 168.952 et seq., MCR 7.104 and MCR 7.105, which

provide this Court with jurisdiction over this complaint, and equitable relief is sought.

4. This court reviews de novo issues of law. Myers v. Patchkowski, 216 Mich App 513, 516;

529 NW2d 602 (1996).

5. Venue is proper before this court pursuant to MCL 600.1615 as Appellee is an Ingham

County government unit, and its wrongful acts occurred in Ingham County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On November 16, 2021, Appellant submitted a recall petition to Ingham County Clerk Barb

Byrum, which complied with MCL 168.952.

7. Appellant’s petition stated the basis for recalling Betz as the following:

February 4, 2021 City Councilmember Brandon Betz sent the following text
messages to constituent Michael Lynn Jr. which are the basis of this recall:
1. “you’re a dickbag troll who no one listens to. I heard you made enemies
with Kathie too. Good work!” 2. “All you want is power and everyone sees
it. You’ll turn your back on any white person who doesn’t do exactly what
you want. Weak ass bitch.” 3. “I don’t represent assholes.”

8. As required by MCL 168.952(3), a clarity hearing was held on December 6, 2021.

9. During the hearing, Election Commission member and Ingham County Treasurer Eric

Schertzing stated, “It’s all factual,” regarding the contents of the petition. Ingham County

Election Commission, Scheduled Election Commission Meetings, 2021, December 6,

2021, Audio, time stamp 3:26, available at

<https://clerk.ingham.org/departments_and_officials/county_clerk/election_commission.

php#outer-5552> (“December 6, 2021, Audio”).

10. During the hearing, Schertzing referred to footnote 5 of a memorandum distributed to the

Commission by attorney Courtney Gabarra and asked about the “specific outcome”

3
 referenced in the memorandum (December 6, 2021, Audio at 3:15) and stated, “There’s no

specified outcome.” December 6, 2021, at 6:04.

11. During the hearing, Election Commissioner and Ingham County Chief Probate Judge

Richard Garcia also read from the memorandum and stated, “Well, in terms of the memo

we received, it says here that instead, the, y’know, the Election Commission may only

consider whether the language is one, factual, and two, sufficiently clear, and three, based

upon the officeholder’s conduct during their current term of office.” December 6, 2021,

Audio at 3:58.

12. During the hearing, Schertzinger again read from the memo, stating, “To, to, to work off

of the memo, I mean, I, I, with a ‘specified outcome.’ I mean, that’s, what’s, there’s no

specified outcome other than ill will, and I, if elected officials were held to an ill will

criteria [sic], God help all of us.” December 6, 2021, Audio at 5:54.

13. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission denied the petition on either the grounds

that the petition is insufficiently clear based on MCL 168.952(c), or on the grounds that

the petition failed to state a “specified outcome,” which has no basis in Michigan law.

14. The Commission never explicitly stated the basis for its denial of the petition.

15. The Commission never provided Appellant with a copy of their determination on the clarity

and factual nature of the recall language to Appellant, in violation of the Michigan Bureau

of Elections Election Officials’ Manual. Election Officials’ Manual, Michigan Bureau of

Elections, Chapter 18, p. 3, available at

<https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/June_2011_Clerk_Accred_Manual_Chapter_

18_362762_7.pdf>.

4
 COUNT I
Violation of Michigan Election Law
MCL 168.952 et seq.

16. Appellant incorporates all previous paragraphs by reference.

17. The law states that a petition for recall must “state factually and clearly each reason for the

recall. Each reason for the recall must be based upon the officer’s conduct during his or her

current term of office.” MCL 168.952(1)(c).

18. “Factual” and “factually” require that the grounds stated in a recall petition are “stated in

terms of a factual occurrence. That is, grounds for recall must be stated in the form of a

factual assertion about the official’s conduct that the proponent believes warrants the

recall.” Hooker v Moore, 326 Mich App 552, 559; 928 NW2d 287 (2018).

19. There are no additional requirements, such as “truthfulness” requirements, as discussed in

Hooker, Id., or “specified outcome” requirements, as the Commission wrongly attempted

to require.

20. “A meticulous and detailed statement of the charges against an officeholder is not required.

It is sufficient if an officeholder is apprised of the course of conduct in office that is the

basis of the recall drive, so that a defense can be mounted regarding that conduct.” Dimas

v Macomb Co Election Comm, 248 Mich App 624; 639 NW2d 850 (2001).

21. Furthermore, “where the clarity of the reasons stated in the petition is a close question,

doubt should be resolved in favor of the individual formulating the petition.” Id.

22. The Commission appeared to be interpreting that Dimas required a third “specified

outcome” requirement because the Dimas court approved of petition language as

sufficiently clear, because it “refer[red] to a specific action…at a specific event…with a

specified outcome.” Id. at 630.

5
23. This is a misguided use of dicta in Dimas for several reasons.

24. First, Dimas was superseded by 2012 Public Act 417 which clarified Michigan election

law and made the requirements for recall as discussed above, per MCL 168.952.

25. Second, Appellee misread and/or misused the dicta. The court in Dimas used these

examples (specific action, event, and outcome) as a rationale to explain its decision as to

why the petition in question was sufficiently clear and factual. The Dimas court did not

establish a new, third requirement of specificity.

26. Furthermore, examining the grounds for recall past simply inquiring whether the grounds

are based in fact becomes a political question that must be left to electors. Hooker at 557

(citing Const 1963, art 2, § 8).

27. Finally, the “specified outcome” of Betz’s decision to engage in harassment of a constituent

can only be known to Betz, as, upon information and belief, he never specified an outcome.

28. Had Appellant’s petition engaged in speculation as to Betz’s “specified outcome,” the

petition would not have been factual and therefore would have also resulted in the

Commission’s denial.

29. The petition at issue here contains a factual assertion of conduct in which Councilmember

Betz engaged in while in office, meeting the requirements of MCL 168.952(1)(c).

30. The grounds for the petition were acknowledged as factual by one of the Election

Commissioners. See, December 6, 2021, Audio at 3:26.

31. The grounds for petition here are also clear. Per the recording, the Commission understood

that the basis of the petition was the series of text messages sent by Councilmember Betz.

See generally, December 6, 2021, Audio 3:00-End.

6
 32. Furthermore, as the Dimas court itself held, “where the clarity of the reasons stated in the

petition is a close question, doubt should be resolved in favor of the individual submitting

the petition.” Dimas v Macomb Co Election Comm, 248 Mich App 624; 639 NW2d 850

(2001) (superseded by statute, 2012 Public Act 417).

33. The Dimas court collected instances of acceptable statements in recall petitions. These

examples, below, do not contain “specified outcomes” but were all found sufficiently clear.

• “[C]onducting secret meetings in violation of the open meetings act”

and “failure to follow procedures set forth in the township officers
manual,” (citing Molitor v Miller, 102 Mich. App. 344, 348; 301
N.W.2d 532 (1980));
• “[F]ailure to faithfully represent the people of the 8th Senatorial District
by voting on March 23, 1983, to report a tax increase bill (HB 4092) out
of committee with a recommendation of passage,” (citing Mastin v
Oakland Co Election Comm, 128 Mich. App. 789, 793; 341 N.W.2d 797
(1983))

34. These examples, none of which contain a “specified outcome,” are noted approvingly in

Dimas, showing that the court in Dimas was not establishing a new, third requirement, but

merely illustrating the clarity requirement.

35. Many other recall petitions have been approved by various Michigan county election

commissions without a “specified outcome.” Examples include but are not limited to the

following:

a. In May 2021, the Washtenaw County Election Commission approved the following

recall petition language: “Hayner posting a homophobic slur on Facebook on April

10, which led to City Council stripping Hayner of his committee assignments.”1,2

1
Pinson, Recall Effort Against Ann Arbor Councilman Moves Forward, WEMU (May 18, 2021). Available at <
https://www.wemu.org/post/recall-effort-against-ann-arbor-councilman-moves-forward#stream/0>.
2
Dodge, ‘Not a close call’: Judge rejects recall appeal from Ann Arbor councilman Jeff Hayner, MLive (July 15,
2021). Available at <https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2021/07/not-a-close-call-judge-rejects-recall-appeal-
from-ann-arbor-councilman-jeff-hayner.html>.

7
 b. On October 8, 2020, the Wayne County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language for three petitions filed against a city

councilmember: “Hamtrack City Council resolution 2019-07 censured Ian Perotta;”

“In the span of 2 years, Ian Perrotta has been censured twice for creating a hostile

work environment;” and “Hamtramck City Council resolution 2020-75 censured

Ian Perrotta.”3

c. On December 3, 2021, the Marquette County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language: “Took actions that resulted in the E. Lake

Street/S. Max Street gazebo being removed from a public access site in reprisal

against people who were opposed to giving part of lake frontage right-of-way to

private property owner. This greatly degrades public access to the lake for township

people.”4

d. On November 29, 2021, the Berrien County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language: “The mayor should be recalled for voting to

declare a state of emergency.”5

e. On November 17, 2021, the Gratiot County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language: “For voting for the approval of the conditional

3
Ballot language approved for recall of Hamtramck Councilman Ian Perrotta, The Arab-American News (October 9,
2020). Available at <https://www.arabamericannews.com/2020/10/09/ballot-language-approved-for-recall-of-
hamtramck-councilman-ian-perrotta/>.
4
Crouch, Recall petition language OK’d, The Mining Journal (December 4, 2021). Available at
<https://www.miningjournal.net/news/front-page-news/2021/12/recall-petition-language-okd/>.
5
Knot, Fourth recall petition against Benton Harbor mayor dismissed, The Herald-Palladium (December 6, 2021).
Available at <https://www.heraldpalladium.com/communities/benton_harbor/fourth-recall-petition-against-benton-
harbor-mayor-dismissed/article_7e5dcd08-a7cd-5d85-a7c7-7b010685c192.html>.

8
 rezoning amendment request from Michigan Masonic Home for 842 Warwick

Drive, Alma, MI 48801 on September 14, 2021.”6

f. On November 12, 2021, the Montcalm County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language: “On July 5, 2021 Sidney Township Trustee Jed

Welder voted nay on the Sidney Township Wind Energy Ordinance, No. 2021-

01.”7

g. In or around November 2021, the Delta County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language for three separate petitions filed against three

separate school board members: “Their aye vote to pass the pilot program at the

Gladstone Area School Board meeting on September 20th, 2021.” 8

h. In or around October 2021, the Kent County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language for petitions filed against five separate school

board members: “Failing to provide consistent transportation for students in the

school district, and for denying the community’s request to livestream school board

meetings.”9

i. On August 25, 2021, the Kent County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language: “Trustee Gokey refused to sign the social media

policy that was passed by the Village Council on February 15, 2021 and is the only

6
Dahlberg, Third attempt at Alma recall petition approved by county board, WKAR (November 19, 2021).
Available at <https://www.wkar.org/wkar-news/2021-11-19/third-attempt-at-alma-recall-petition-approved-by-
county-board>.
7
Waldon, Language approved in recall attempt against Sidney Township trustee, Daily News (November 13, 2021).
Available at <https://www.thedailynews.cc/articles/language-approved-in-recall-attempt-against-sidney-township-
trustee/>.
8
Effort to recall school board members continues, Daily Press (November 26, 2021). Available at
<https://www.dailypress.net/news/local-news/2021/11/effort-to-recall-school-board-members-continues/>.
9
Frick, Parent group files recall petition to remove 5 Forest Hills school board members, MLive (October 7, 2021).
Available at <https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/10/parent-group-files-recall-petition-to-remove-5-
forest-hills-school-board-members.html>.

9
 member of Council that has refused to sign and follow the policy; Trustee Gokey

was censured by the Village Council on May 17, 2021.”10

j. On June 22, 2021, the Gladstone County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language: “On July 27, 2020, Gladstone City

Commissioner, Brad Mantela, voted to pass Special Assessment Resolution 2020-

12-4 (4th Street Infrastructure Project).”11

k. In January 2021, the Macomb County Election Commission approved the

following recall petition language: “For his no vote at the Nov. 24 City Council

meeting in opposition to the proposed settlement and consent judgment in the

lawsuit Pinebrook Warren LLC versus the city of Warren regarding marijuana

provisioning center licenses.”12

36. The Commission’s confused opinion of Plaintiff’s petition—requiring a specified

outcome—is not based in Michigan law or fact.

37. Additional requirements, like “an assessment of the accuracy or truthfulness of a factual

assertion,” becomes “an inquiry into the sufficiency of the reason stated in support of recall;

[Michigan’s] Constitution plainly reserves that assessment to the electors.” Hooker at 559.

38. Election Commissioner and Ingham County Treasurer Eric Schertzing provided the

following statement to the Lansing City Pulse regarding the reason for denial of the

petition: “I can’t read the language and understand why it’s what would be presented to

10
Reed, Recall petition approved for Sand Lake trustee, The Cedar Springs Post (August 26, 2021). Available at
<https://cedarspringspost.com/2021/08/26/recall-petition-approved-for-sand-lake-trustee/>.
11
Minor, Petition to recall city commissioner approved, Daily Press (June 23, 2021). Available at
<https://www.dailypress.net/news/local-news/2021/06/petition-to-recall-city-commissioner-approved/>.
12
Hall, Wording OK'd on 1 of 2 recall petitions for controversial Warren councilman, Detroit Free Press (January
20, 2021). Available at <https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2021/01/20/recall-petition-
warren-councilman-eddie-kabacinski/3860898001/>.

10
 this body for recall petition language…. There’s no specified outcome other than ill will.

If elected officials were held to an ill will criteria [sic], then God help us all.” Kaminski,

Election Commission kills recall petition against Betz — again, Lansing City Pulse

(December 6, 2021). Available at <https://lansingcitypulse.com/stories/election-

commission-kills-recall-petition-against-betz-again,19150?>.

39. Schertzing’s statements during the hearing and to Kaminski are further evidence of the

Commission’s failure to comply with the law in considering only whether the language of

the petition was clear and factual.

40. Schertzing’s statements regarding “ill will” are also evidence of political motivations

improperly affecting the Commission’s decision—“God help us,” said the elected county

treasurer multiple times, regarding his assumption about the rationale for the recall petition

of a fellow elected official.

41. The Commission’s inquiries went beyond whether the petition is factual or clear, entering

the territory of a political question, which is a right of inquiry plainly left to the electorate

of Michigan.

42. The Commission failed to articulate any clear, legal reason for its decision that the petition

should be rejected.

43. The Commission erred by determining that the petition lacked sufficient clarity and/or

lacked a specified outcome.

44. If this error is allowed to stand, it will result in irreparable harm to Plaintiff and other voters

who would be deprived of their right to vote to recall Councilmember Betz.

RELIEF REQUESTED

For all the foregoing reasons, Appellant prays that this Court:

11
 A. This Honorable Court grant declaratory relief in the form of an order stating that the

proposed petition is of sufficient clarity and complies with MCL 168.952 et seq.; and

B. To the extent that this Court should determine that this matter should be treated as an

administrative appeal, this Complaint be determined to serve as notice of such appeal

pursuant to MCR 7.101; and

C. This Court grant an immediate hearing in this matter; and

D. This Court grant such other relief as it may determine is just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 16, 2021

Karen Truszkowski (P56929)
TEMPERANCE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
Attorney for Appellant
503 Mall Court #131
Lansing, MI 48912
Phone: (844) 534-2560
Fax: (800) 531-6527
karen@temperancelegalgroup.com

______________________________
Elizabeth Abdnour, Appellant

12