A federal district judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging the validity of two separate voting rights constitutional amendments adopted by state voters in 2018 and 2022, finding the lawmakers who brought the case did not have proper standing.
The lawsuit, filed in October 2023 by 11 Michigan Republican lawmakers, argued the policies ushered in under Proposal 3 of 2018 and Proposal 2 of 2022 — such as no reason absentee voting and nine days of early voting — violated the rights of lawmakers who, they argued, should be the sole body responsible for making election-related laws.
The suit was filed against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Elections Director Jonathan Brater.
Federal District Judge Jane Beckering in her Wednesday decision found the lawmakers did not have legal standing — a specific interest or specific injury — under which they could bring the case, neither as lawmakers nor as taxpayers or voters.
Beckering found the lawmakers did not have a particular right as individual legislators to argue that they had sole authority to rewrite election law.
“Plaintiffs’ asserted injury—the deprivation of the power to cast a binding vote — is neither concrete nor particularized because it is shared by every single member of the Michigan Legislature,” Beckering wrote.
She made similar conclusions as to the lawmakers’ alleged standing as taxpayers and voters.
“As defendants correctly point out, plaintiffs’ claim that the election regulations under which they must vote were enacted unlawfully is likewise a prototypical generalized grievance: ‘every other voter in Michigan could make the exact same claim,'” Beckering wrote.
Erick Kaardal, a Minnesota attorney representing the lawmakers who has also brought unsuccessful litigation challenging the results of the 2020 election in Wisconsin, said the lawmakers plan to appeal Beckering’s decision. He argued the Michigan Supreme Court in Dodak v. State Administrative Board recognized the standing of individual lawmakers.
“We think the case is really important regarding state legislative prerogatives to regulate federal elections,” Kaardal said.
The plaintiffs Republican lawmakers listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Sens. Jonathan Lindsey of Coldwater and Jim Runestad of White Lake and Reps. Steve Carra of Three Rivers, James DeSana of Carleton, Joseph Fox of Fremont, Neil Friske of Charlevoix, Matt Maddock of Milford, Brad Paquette of Niles, Angela Rigas of Caledonia, Joshua Schriver of Oxford and Rachelle Smit of Shelbyville.
Kaardal said he was working on the lawsuit with Michigan Fair Elections, a nonprofit group that doesn’t have to publicly disclose its donors.
Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel celebrated Beckering’s decision Wednesday, arguing the lawsuit was nothing more than an effort to deprive Michigan voters of their constitutionally-protected right to enact laws at the ballot box.
“The idea that the time, place and manner of federal elections law-making is beyond the right of voters to self-determine is anti-democratic,” Benson said.
Nessel called the challenge “absurd and baseless from its inception.”
“Our democracy is participatory, and in Michigan citizen initiatives and referendums have long played a vital role in making our state government better reflect the values of our people,” Nessel wrote in a statement.
The litigation struck down Wednesday attempted to capitalize on the so-called “independent state Legislature theory,” which was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June as it applies to court rulings on election law. The independent state Legislature theory contends the Michigan and U.S. constitutions give lawmakers absolute power over rules governing federal elections.
The theory as it applies to court encroachment on election law was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in June 2023, with the justices finding that courts could act on election law within “ordinary bounds.” Lawyers for the Michigan case argued theirs differed slightly because it challenged citizen-led initiatives, not judicial encroachment.
The group of GOP lawmakers sought to prevent future citizen-led petition initiatives specific to election laws and to secure a ruling that the 2018 and 2022 changes were unconstitutional. But many of the constitutional provisions had already been cemented in state statute so it’s unclear what such a decision would have meant in Michigan.
Proposal 3 of 2018, which won 67% approval from voters, allowed for no-reason absentee voting in Michigan and restoring straight party voting on ballots, a voting choice that a GOP-controlled Legislature took away. Proposal 2 of 2022 allowed for early in-person voting and passed with 60% support.
___
© 2024 www.detroitnews.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
