A Wayne County Circuit Court judge on Monday, June 1 dismissed a lawsuit brought forth by a group of residents opposed to a countywide transit millage expected to go before voters in August.
Plaintiffs, including the group Not Smart Wayne, filed a lawsuit in early May over what they said is a lack of transparency around the process of getting the measure on the ballot. The lawsuit was filed amid the group’s pushback against the tax, which they said would be too costly.
At issue: a countywide transit millage to help fund the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) service and other transportation providers in Wayne County. Property owners in 17 communities not currently in the SMART system would see a new tax. The 26 other municipalities already in the SMART system wouldn’t see an increase in their millage rate. The goal of the transit millage is to close service gaps across the county, according to transit providers and advocates.
Judge Kathleen McCarthy denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The order closes the case.
“Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to any of their allegations. Additionally, given the availability of alternative remedies, plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm. Finally, the speculative harms described by plaintiffs are outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that voters have the opportunity to decide on lawful proposals,” McCarthy said in the order.
Plaintiffs said they were disappointed by the judge’s ruling and disagreed with her determinations.
“The judge acknowledged that Wayne County did only the bare minimum when advertising this meeting, and even pointed out that they didn’t have a website and should probably establish one. All of this underscores the fact that the average resident in Wayne County had no idea this meeting was taking place,” said plaintiff Matthew Wilk in a statement.
The issue is not over, plaintiffs said.
“We are evaluating our legal options, including an appeal. Meanwhile, we look forward to taking this directly to the voters, explaining exactly what they are voting on, and allowing them to make an informed decision,” Wilk said.
In a statement, Wayne County Executive Warren Evans said he was pleased with the judge’s decision.
“Contrary to the allegations brought by this lawsuit, there was never any failure to comply with the Open Meetings Act, nor was there any violation of Michigan election and tax laws, and the court agreed,” Evans said. “We have always been open and inclusive in our efforts to improve transportation options for Wayne County, and our goals have always been clear. Confusing the voters has never been a tactic we used, nor would such a tactic benefit our efforts in any way. Our only objective has always been to provide the best transportation options to as many Wayne County residents who need it.”
SMART General Manager and CEO Tiffany Gunter said the path forward for Wayne County voters is now clear.
“This millage is about connecting communities, supporting seniors, and strengthening our regional economy. We look forward to having that conversation directly with residents between now and August 4,” Gunter said in a statement.
The lawsuit alleged that defendants — including the Wayne County Transit Authority (WCTA) — didn’t properly notify the public about a meeting and that the ballot language is “designed to confuse voters.”
Defendants demonstrated that they posted about a March 19 special meeting in the lobby of the Wayne County administrative offices, according to the court order.
“Admittedly, the WCTA does not have a website. Probably should, but it’s not required. Hopefully, will get one soon,” McCarthy said during a hearing.
The court also disagreed that the ballot language would create confusion, noting that the Wayne County Transit Authority “accurately labeled its proposed millage as a ‘new millage.'”
The plaintiffs wanted the court to declare that defendants violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (OMA), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), election law and General Property Tax Act (GPTA). They said the question should be kept off the ballot in August or any future elections.
“Based on the lack of evidence that alleged violations of the OMA, FOIA, Michigan election laws and GPTA occurred, plaintiffs have failed to establish the risk that they would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction than the opposing party would be by the granting of the relief. Further, issuance of an injunction under these circumstances, without any clear basis for relief, would harm the public interest,” the order said.
Reach reporter Nushrat Rahman at nrahman@freepress.com.
