
    McCARTNEY v MAYOR, CITY OF NORTON SHORES
    Docket No. 62267.
    Submitted October 7, 1982, at Grand Rapids.—
    Decided December 16, 1982.
    Leave to appeal denied, 417 Mich 1085.
    Robert McCartney and Merrill Bailey, both candidates for the office of mayor of the City of Norton Shores, received the same number of ballots in the election. One absentee ballot, apparently cast in favor of McCartney, was not counted because it was improperly marked. In order to break the stalemate, McCartney and Bailey drew lots. Bailey won and wás named mayor. McCartney, by special leave of the Muskegon Circuit Court, filed a quo warranto complaint against Bailey, as mayor of the City of Norton Shores, the city clerk of the City of Norton Shores, and the Muskegon County Board of Canvassers, seeking to have Bailey removed from office and himself named as mayor. The court, Ronald H. Pannucci, J., granted summary judgment in favor of defendants while denying accelerated judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals and defendants cross appeal. Held:
    
    1. The trial court’s order granting summary judgment was proper. The statutes governing elections are clear and provide that ballots which are not marked with a cross to designate the intention of the voter shall not be counted. The absentee ballot not counted in this case was clearly marked with a check mark.
    2. The case is disposed of on plaintiff’s appeal. The issues raised by defendants on their cross-appeal need not be addressed.
    Affirmed.
    1. Elections — Counting of Votes — Marking of Ballots.
    The statute governing the counting and recounting of election votes provides that a ballot marked with other than a cross is not to be counted (MCL 168.803; MSA 6.1803).
    2. Elections — Intent of Voter — Statutory Requirements.
    A conflict between a voter’s intent and the clear statutory requirements of the statute governing the counting and recounting of votes is controlled by the statute (MCL 168.803; MSA 6.1803).
    
      References for Points in Headnotes
    [1, 2] 26 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 257 et seq.
    
    
       26 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 271.
    
      
      Libner, Van Leuven & Kortering, P.C. (by Vernon D. Kortering), for plaintiff.
    
      Clary, Nantz, Wood, Hoffius, Rankin & Cooper (by Donald M. Bailey), for Merrill Bailey.
    
      O’Toole, Stevens, Johnson, Knowlton, Potter & Rolf (by G. Thomas Johnson), for Dorothy Harjer.
    
      Knudsen, Wasiura & Associates, P.C. (by Harry J. Knudsen), for Muskegon County Board of Canvassers.
    Before: R. B. Burns, P.J., and Mackenzie and T. L. Brown, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Per Curiam.

Upon the granting of special leave by the circuit court, plaintiff filed a quo warranto complaint in order to remove Merrill Bailey from the office of Mayor of Norton Shores and replace Bailey with himself. Summary judgment was granted in favor of all defendants while accelerated judgment in favor of plaintiff was denied. Plaintiff appeals as of right. Defendants cross appeal.

Plaintiff and Bailey received the same number of votes in the November, 1981, Norton Shores mayoral election. One absentee ballot marked with a check mark instead of a cross was not counted. Had the vote been counted, plaintiff would have won the election. Instead, the candidates drew lots and Bailey was named mayor.

Michigan statutes governing elections are clear. MCL 168.803; MSA 6.1803 provides in pertinent part:

"3. Marks other than crosses used to designate the intention of the voter shall not be counted.
"5. * * * This provision shall not be construed as validating so-called 'check marks’.”

While a voter’s intent is of great importance, where intent conflicts with clear statutory requirements, the statute controls. McNally v Wayne County Bd of Canvassers, 316 Mich 551; 25 NW2d 613 (1947). While appellate courts are free to overrule their own existing case law, they must generally follow the clear dictates of the Legislature as they appear in unambiguous statutes. Although the election statute governing the marking of ballots may result in the loss of some votes, comprehensive and uniform guidelines are necessary in order to ensure that elections are conducted fairly, impartially, and efficiently. Any other rule would result in endless confusion and would make the local inspectors judges of the voters’ intentions. Given the clarity of the statute, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment was proper.

This case is disposed of on plaintiffs appeal. We therefore do not address the issue raised by defendants on their cross-appeal.

Affirmed.  