Graveline v. Benson
| Decision Date | 22 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-12354 |
| Citation | 430 F.Supp.3d 297 |
| Parties | Christopher GRAVELINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jocelyn BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Oliver B. Hall, Center for Competitive Democracy, William P. Tedards, Jr., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Denise C. Barton, Heather S. Meingast, Scott A. Mertens, MI Department of Attorney General, Erik A. Grill, Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Srvs., Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a group of Michigan laws that govern an independent candidate's ability to be on the ballot for election to statewide office (i.e., the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and the offices of United States Senate and President).
Plaintiff Christopher Graveline ("Graveline") attempted to get on the November 2018 general election ballot as an independent, non-partisan candidate for attorney general. However, after failing to collect the number of signatures required to appear on the ballot by the prescribed deadline, Graveline and three of his supporters (the "Voter-Plaintiffs"; collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this case against the Michigan Secretary of State (then Ruth Johnson; now Jocelyn Benson) and Sally Williams, the Director of Michigan's Bureau of Elections (collectively, "the State" or "Defendants").
They allege that the governing statutes – Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.590c(2), 168.544f, and 168.590b(4) – operate in combination to deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech and association, equal protection, and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
After briefing and a hearing, the Court entered a preliminary injunction – finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that Michigan's ballot access requirements for independent candidates for statewide office were, in combination, unconstitutional as applied to them. That injunction placed Graveline on the ballot for the 2018 election.
This matter is now before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. [ECF Nos. 28, 30]. The Court held a hearing on the motions on December 17, 2019.
For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion and DENIES Defendants' motion.
Michigan law provides different filing and eligibility requirements for attorney general candidates based on their affiliation and/or candidacy type.
Michigan allows independent candidates for statewide office to be on the general election ballot if the candidate submits an affidavit and "qualifying petition." Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.590(1), 168.590c(2) (2008). A qualifying petition must have at least 30,000 valid signatures and must be submitted no later than "the one hundred-tenth day before the general election." Id. §§ 168.590c(2), 168.544f. Moreover, the signatures on a qualifying petition must be obtained within 180 days of the filing deadline, and as part of the signature requirement, a qualifying petition must be signed by at least 100 registered voters in each of at least half of Michigan's 14 congressional districts (the "geographic distribution requirement"). Id. § 168.590b(3).
The filing deadline for independent attorney general candidates for the November 6, 2018 election was July 19, 2018. Therefore, the official process for an independent candidate trying to run for attorney general in the November 6, 2018 general election began in late January 2018 – 180 days prior to the July 19 deadline.
Candidates for Michigan attorney general from the major political parties – Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian – are nominated at party conventions rather than elected in a primary. Candidates from these parties do not have to circulate nominating petitions or obtain signatures in support of their candidacies.
A major political party must hold its convention "not less than 60 days before the general November election." Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.591(1). In 2018, that deadline fell on September 7, 2018. Given this law, an independent candidate likely would be ignorant of the identities of the major party candidates before the independent candidate filing deadline.
The three ballot eligibility requirements being challenged – the 30,000 signature requirement, the filing deadline, and the geographic distribution requirement – have, in all material respects1 , been in effect since 1988.
Michigan's 30,000 signature figure equates to just less than one percent of ballots cast for attorney general in the past two elections, 2018 and 2014.
Since Michigan enacted this statutory scheme in 1988, no independent candidate for statewide office has qualified for the ballot. This does not include independent candidates for the President of the United States; two independent candidates for President did satisfy Michigan's statutory scheme – Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2004.
A significant number of people have attempted to qualify for the ballot as independent candidates for statewide office since 1988. Based on records submitted by Defendants showing the number of independent candidate committees formed, there have been 30 individuals since 1997 who tried to get on ballots as independent candidates for statewide offices.
This alone is sufficient to show a significant number of attempts to satisfy Michigan's electoral scheme by independent candidates for statewide office. However, these records are incomplete in material ways. First, the records only go back to 1997, not 1988. The records also do not include the number of committees formed for all statewide offices; they do not include the number of independent candidates who attempted to run for United States Senate in Michigan. Finally, as Defendants acknowledge, the 30 candidates/committees shown by the records do not include "pending" committees; when including pending committees – which Defendants describe as committees that have "not completed the process" and were "not [ ] legally formed," [ECF No. 34, PageID.646] – the number of candidates would be 46 since 1997.
The parties agree that mounting a successful all-volunteer signature collection effort is difficult to accomplish. Indeed, Lee Albright – a signature gathering expert retained by the State with nationwide experience gathering signatures for petition efforts since 1988, including several statewide petition efforts in Michigan – opined that, [ECF No. 28-7, PageID.391].
The difficulty of complying with a high signature requirement is multiplied by the fact that a 75% validity rate is "the industry standard" – and even that rate "can be difficult to maintain." [Id. , PageID.390].
Assuming a 75% validity rate, that means an independent candidate for statewide office would need to collect 40,000 signatures to be assured of qualification. [Id. ].
Although Mr. Albright indicates there are too many variables for him to attach a range of costs to a paid signature-gathering effort, the limited evidence in the record shows paying for such effort is costly. [Id. , PageID.391]. Moreover, "[e]ven volunteer efforts have a cost attached to them – petition processing and verification, etc." ].
As discussed below, to the extent Graveline used a professional signature-gathering firm, he paid $6 per signature, with a guaranteed 75% validity rate. Notably, Mr. Albright opines – with some speculation – that had Graveline used the entire 180 days allowed by statute, "his costs per signature might have been lower." [Id. (emphasis added) ]. Nevertheless, even assuming the cost for a professional signature-gathering firm which guarantees a 75% validity rate is only $3 per signature collected – half of what Graveline paid – it would cost an independent candidate without a volunteer collection effort $120,000 to comply with Mich. Comp. Laws. § 168.544f.
Graveline waited to begin his campaign until June 4, 2018. His delay was based on two factors. First, Graveline stated that he "only entered th[e] [attorney general] race when it became reasonably clear to [him] that the Democratic and Republican Parties would be nominating candidates who d[id] not subscribe to [his] ideals." [ECF No. 1-3, PageID.32]. The earliest he made this decision was after the Democratic Party's April 15, 2018 informal, early endorsement convention. [Id. , PageID.29-32]. The second factor which delayed the launch of Graveline's campaign was his occupation as an Assistant United States Attorney; as a federal employee, the Hatch Act required Graveline to resign his position before he could file as a candidate for what is considered a partisan office. [Id. , PageID.32-33]. Thus, while Graveline was seriously considering an independent candidacy in May 2018, he was not able to file formally until after he resigned from federal service.
From June 7 until the July 19 deadline, Graveline collected 14,157 signatures. ]. Assuming a 75% validity rate, this amounted to approximately 10,600 valid signatures.
Graveline and 231 volunteers collected 7,899 signatures. [Id. ]. Graveline also retained a professional signature-gathering firm which gathered over 6,000 signatures;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitfield v. Thurston
...on other grounds by Public Integrity Alliance, Inc. v. City of Tucson , 836 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2016) ; Graveline v. Benson , 430 F. Supp. 3d 297, 297 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (finding unconstitutional the "severe burden" imposed on independent candidates for statewide office and voters who wish t......
-
Graveline v. Benson
...that their claims were not moot, even though Graveline was placed on the ballot and the 2018 election had ended. Graveline , 430 F. Supp. 3d 297, 305–07 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Turning to the merits, the district court again applied the Anderson - Burdick framework; however, it considered Defend......
-
Kishore v. Whitmer
...permanently enjoined the State from enforcing these signature requirements against independent candidates. See Graveline v. Benson , 430 F. Supp. 3d 297, 318 (E.D. Mich. 2019). The district court in Graveline ordered, as an interim measure, that the signature requirements for independent ca......
-
Kishore v. Whitmer
...registered electors in the State of Michigan. It is undisputed, however, that a permanent injunction issued in Graveline v. Johnson, 430 F. Supp.3d 297 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2019) reduces that signature requirement down to 12,000 - less than half of the minimum statutory requirement - at the......