Daunt v. Benson
| Decision Date | 27 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-1734,20-1734 |
| Parties | Anthony DAUNT, Tom Barrett, Aaron Beauchine, Kathy Berden, Stephen Daunt, Gerry Hildenbrand, Gary Koutsoubos, Linda Lee Tarver, Patrick Meyers, Marian Sheridan, Mary Shinkle, Norm Shinkle, Paul Sheridan, Bridget Beard, Clint Tarver (19-cv-00614), Plaintiffs-Appellants, Michigan Republican Party (19-cv-00669), Plaintiff, v. Jocelyn BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State; Count MI Vote, doing business as Voters Not Politicians, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Even before the Supreme Court declared the issue of partisan gerrymandering a nonjusticiable political question in Rucho v. Common Cause , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2491, 204 L.Ed.2d 931 (2019), some states had begun to address the issue head on. This case involves one such endeavor: Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (the "Commission"), which was established by ballot initiative in the state's 2018 general election. The Commission is composed of thirteen registered voters—eight who affiliate with the state's two major political parties (four per party) and five who are unaffiliated with those parties—who must satisfy various eligibility criteria designed to ensure that they lack certain political ties.
Plaintiffs here are Michigan citizens who allege that they are unconstitutionally excluded from serving on the Commission by its eligibility criteria, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They appeal the district court's dismissal of their Complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We rejected similar—if not identical—arguments to those that Plaintiffs raise here when we affirmed the district court's earlier denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in Daunt v. Benson , 956 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2020) (" Daunt I "). Plaintiffs’ arguments are no more persuasive this time around. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Commission's eligibility criteria do not offend the First or Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
On November 6, 2018, Michiganders went to the polls and voted in favor of Proposal 18-2 on their general-election ballots. That proposal—filed by defendant-intervenor Count MI Vote d/b/a Voters Not Politicians ("VNP")—called for a state constitutional amendment "to establish a commission of citizens with exclusive authority to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress." Michigan Board of State Canvassers, Official Ballot Wording approved by the Board of State Canvassers, August 30, 2018, Voters Not Politicians , https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Official_Ballot_Wording_Prop_18-2_632052_7.pdf.
The commission would be composed of thirteen registered voters, randomly selected by the Secretary of State, of whom four each would be affiliated with Michigan's two "major political parties" and five would be unaffiliated with those two parties. Id. Pursuant to the Proposal, "partisan officeholders and candidates, their employees, certain relatives, and lobbyists" would be prohibited from serving on the Commission. Id. The Proposal also called for the amendment to Id.
Consistent with Proposal 18-2, Michigan's constitution was amended effective December 22, 2018, to establish the Commission and new redistricting criteria. See Mich. Const. art. IV, § 6 (the "Amendment"). The Commission is made up of the aforementioned thirteen registered voters in the requisite four-four-five division. See id. § 6 (1). The Amendment sets forth eligibility criteria for commissioners, who must not be currently, or have been in the past six years:
Id. at § 6(1)(b).1 In addition, the Amendment bars from the Commission "a parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, or spouse" of an individual in any of the above categories. Id. at § 6(1)(c). Commissioners are ineligible for partisan elected offices in Michigan for five years from the day of their appointment. Id. at § 6(1)(e).
The Amendment provides a detailed procedure for the selection of commissioners. The Secretary of State is to make commissioner applications available to the public no later than January 1 of the year that the decennial census is to take place. Id. at § 6(2)(a)(i). As part of the application, prospective commissioners must "attest under oath" that they satisfy the Amendment's eligibility criteria and "either that they affiliate with one of the two political parties with the largest representation in the legislature (hereinafter, the ‘major parties’), and if so, identify the party with which they affiliate, or that they do not affiliate with either of the major parties." Id. at § 6(2)(a)(iii). After eliminating incomplete applications and those applicants who do not satisfy the eligibility criteria, the Secretary of State divides the applications into pools for those affiliated with each of the state's two major political parties and a third pool for unaffiliated candidates. Id. at § 6(2)(d). The Secretary of State then randomly selects sixty applications from each of the affiliated pools and eighty applications from the unaffiliated pool, using a statistical weighting method to ensure that each of the three remaining sets "as closely as possible, mirror the geographic and demographic makeup of the state." Id. Once the Secretary of State has completed this process, she submits the applications to the majority and minority leaders of the state senate, the speaker of the state house of representatives, and the minority leader of the state house of representatives, each of whom may strike up to five applicants (up to twenty total strikes across the remaining applications). Id. at § 6(2)(e). The remaining applications are returned to the Secretary of State, who "shall randomly draw the names of four commissioners from each of the two pools of remaining applicants affiliating with a major party, and five commissioners from the pool of remaining non-affiliating applicants." Id. at § 6(2)(f). These thirteen commissioners hold office until the "Commission has completed its obligations for the census cycle," id. at § 6(18), and receive "compensation equal to at least [twenty-five] percent of the governor's salary," id. at § 6(5).
With respect to the Commission's operations, "[a] final decision of the [C]ommission to adopt a redistricting plan requires a majority vote of the [C]ommission, including at least two commissioners who affiliate with each major party, and at least two commissioners who do not affiliate with either major party." Id. at § 6(14)(c). Commissioners are required to "abide by the following criteria in proposing and adopting" these plans:
Id. § 6(13). Before voting on a plan, "the commission shall ensure that the plan is tested, using appropriate technology, for compliance with the criteria described above." Id. at § 6(14)(a). Each commissioner is to "perform his or her duties in a manner that is impartial and reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process." Id. at § 6(10).
On July 30, 2019, Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson shortly after she released a draft of the commissioner application. See R. 1 (Compl. at ¶ 33) (Page ID #13–14). Each Plaintiff alleges that they "desire to serve on the Commission" but are barred because of their past or present partisan ties. See id. at ¶¶ 2, 39 (Page ID #3, 17). For example, Anthony Daunt alleges that he has served as a registered lobbyist in Michigan since 2013, a member and officer of the Clinton County...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n
...to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress.’ " Daunt v. Benson , 999 F.3d 299, 303 (6th Cir. 2021), quoting Michigan Board of State Canvassers, Official Ballot Wording approved by the Board of State Canvassers, August 30, 2018, ......
-
Garcia v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...to Plaintiffs, we must determine whether the complaints have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Daunt v. Benson , 999 F.3d 299, 307–08 (6th Cir. 2021).B. Jurisdiction The district courts, the parties, and other courts have framed the issues in this case as a question of subjec......
-
Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State
...; Rodriguez v. Newsom , 974 F.3d 998, 1011 (9th Cir. 2020) ; Lyman v. Baker , 954 F.3d 351, 376-78 (1st Cir. 2020).32 Daunt v. Benson , 999 F.3d 299, 303-22 (6th Cir. 2021).33 See, e.g., Lindsay v. Bowen , 750 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2014) ; Grizzle v. Kemp , 634 F.3d 1314, 1322-26 (11......
-
Garcia v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...favorable to Plaintiffs, we must determine whether the complaints have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Daunt v. Benson, 999 F.3d 299, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2021). B. Jurisdiction The district courts, the parties, and other courts have framed the issues in this case as a question......
-
Restoring the Proper Role of the Courts in Election Law: Toward a Reinvigoration of the Political Question Doctrine
...contexts having only a tangential relationship to elections is “not just slippery; it is greased, frozen, and polished.” Daunt v. Benson, 999 F.3d 299, 326 (6th Cir. 2021) (Readler, J., concurring). 77. Mays v. LaRose, 951 F.3d 775, 783 n.4 (6th Cir. 2020); see also Crawford v. Marion Cnty.......