In Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Commission, the Court of Appeals considered whether Detroit City Clerk candidate, D. Etta Wilcoxon, had submitted sufficient signatures to have her name placed on the ballot. The trial court held that she had, and ordered defendants to place her on the ballot. Defendants challenged that ruling on several grounds. First, defendants argued that she failed to seek review from the secretary of state of their decision not to place her on the ballot within three days, as MCL 168.552 requires. The Court held that the three-day time limit had never been triggered in this case, because defendants had failed to make any official declaration of their findings that certain signatures on the nominating petition were invalid. The letter notifying Wilcoxon generally that 58 signatures had been invalidated was insufficient. Second, defendants asserted that the trial court had improperly validated some of the signatures because they did not include an address or date. The Court disagreed, noting that the statute did not require the elector to provide an address or date. Third, defendants claimed that a writ of mandamus could not be used to validate certain signatures by comparing the signatures to voter registrations. The Court replied that where the city clerk had failed to provide a “full and fair review of the contested assessment” the remedies of mandamus, superintending control, and declaratory judgment were available to Wilcoxon. The circuit court’s validation of these signatures using voter registrations was proper.