Graveline v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 27 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-12354 |
| Citation | 336 F.Supp.3d 801 |
| Parties | Christopher GRAVELINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ruth JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Oliver B. Hall, William P. Tedards, Jr., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Denise C. Barton, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.
In this ballot access case, Christopher Graveline ("Graveline") and three of his supporters ("Plaintiff-Voters"; collectively "Plaintiffs") challenge three Michigan statutes which they say operate in combination to deprive them of substantial associational and equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
First, Plaintiffs say these statutes severely burden Graveline's right to appear on the November general election ballot as an independent, non-partisan candidate for attorney general. Second, they say that because of Graveline's exclusion from the ballot, the Plaintiff-Voters are unable to "cast a meaningful and effective vote"; they only have major party candidates to choose from, but they believe that Michigan's attorney general should be a non-partisan actor.
Plaintiffs contend that Michigan's statutory scheme functions as an absolute bar to independent candidates for statewide office (i.e., the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state) seeking access to the general election ballot. Additionally, they say that their freedom to associate for the advancement of their ideas and beliefs is hampered by the monopolization of the attorney general ballot by party candidates.
Defendants fail to address the combined burdens and collective impact argument made by Plaintiffs. They also fail to address Plaintiffs' argument that Michigan's long history of failing to qualify an independent candidate for statewide office has served to exclude all independent candidates for attorney general from the ballot for thirty years, and that this failure should be considered by the Court as a reliable indicator of the unconstitutionality of Michigan's statutes.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs meet their burden to show that the character and magnitude of their injuries is significant and that the Michigan statutes – in combination – severely burden the constitutional rights not only of Graveline, but also of the Plaintiff-Voters. On balance, the interests that Defendants seek to protect – guaranteeing that independent candidates have a "modicum of support" and protecting the integrity of the election process by regulating the number of candidates on the ballot to avoid voter confusion – are not sufficiently weighty to justify the reach and breadth of the challenged statutes. In addition, it appears that there are less restrictive means by which Defendants can achieve their goals.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs show they have a strong likelihood of success on their claims that Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.590c(2), 168.544f, and 168.590b(4) are unconstitutional as applied to them, in relation to Graveline's independent candidacy for Michigan attorney general.
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED .
To be eligible for the office of Michigan Attorney General, a person must be a registered and qualified elector in the State of Michigan on the date that he or she is nominated. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.71. Beyond that, Michigan law provides different filing and eligibility requirements for Attorney General candidates based on their affiliation and/or candidacy type:
Major Party Candidates: Candidates for Attorney General from a major party (i.e., Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian Parties) are nominated at their party's nominating convention, which must be held "not less than 60 days before the general November election." Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.591(1). This year, that date falls on September 7, 2018. Party officials then have one business day to file an Affidavit of Identity and Certificate of Nomination documenting the person nominated. § 168.686. Candidates from these parties do not have to circulate nominating petitions or obtain signatures in support of their candidacies.
Minor Party Candidates: Candidates for Attorney General from a minor party (i.e., a party from which no candidate received "at least 5% of the total vote cast for all candidates for secretary of state at the last preceding election at which a secretary of state was elected") are nominated at their party's nominating convention, which must be held no later than the August primary election. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.686a(1), 168.532. This year, the primary election was held on August 7, 2018. Party officials then have one business day to file an Affidavit of Identity, Certificate of Nomination, and a Certificate of Acceptance for their selected candidates. § 168.686a(4). Candidates from these parties do not have to circulate nominating petitions or obtain signatures in support of their candidacies.
Independent Candidates: To be placed on the general election ballot, a candidate for Attorney General without political party affiliation, like Graveline, must file an Affidavit of Identity and qualifying petition with at least 30,000 signatures of registered voters no later than "the one hundred-tenth day before the general election." Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.590c(2), 168.544f. This year, the filing deadline fell on July 19, 2018. To ensure they have enough valid signatures, unaffiliated candidates may submit as many as 60,000 signatures. § 168.544f. However, a candidate can only begin collecting signatures 180 days before the deadline, and, as part of the minimum number of signatures 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. See § 168.590b(3), (4).
Write-In Candidates: A write-in candidate for Attorney General must file a Declaration of Intent with the Secretary of State by October 26, 2018. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.737a(1).
Graveline filed a Statement of Organization announcing his campaign for Michigan Attorney General on June 4, 2018. As alleged in the complaint, Graveline began collecting signatures on June 7, 2018. Over the next 42 days – up until the July 19, 2018 deadline for submission of his nominating petition – he and 231 volunteers collected 7,899 signatures for submission. Graveline supplemented volunteer efforts by retaining a professional signature-gathering firm, SMI Enterprises. SMI charged $6 per "billable signature" and collected over 6,000 signatures for a total expense to his campaign of $37,258. A billable signature is defined as a signature that is collected, processed, and reviewed for any apparent defects; SMI guaranteed that at least 75% of the billable signatures it collected would be valid.
Despite these efforts, Graveline fell well short of the minimum number of required signatures; over the 42 days, his campaign collected 14,157 signatures, with at least 100 signatures in 12 of Michigan's 14 congressional districts, at a cost of approximately $38,000 and with over 1,000 volunteer hours spent. Graveline attempted to file his nominating petition on July 19, 2018, but the Bureau of Elections rejected his filing as incomplete.
Graveline and Plaintiff-Voters – Willard Johnson, Michael Leibson, and Kellie Deming – filed this case on July 27, 2018. Each of the Plaintiff-Voters is a registered Michigan voter who wishes to vote for Graveline as an independent candidate for Attorney General.
Plaintiffs' complaint contains three causes of action; each asserts a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In Count I, Plaintiffs allege Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.590c(2) is facially unconstitutional because its filing deadline unduly burdens independent candidates for office and is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling or legitimate state interest. In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that § 168.590c(2) is unconstitutional as applied in combination with the requirements in §§ 168.544f and 168.590b(4), because adding the signature requirements to the deadline imposed in § 168.590c(2) multiplies the undue burden on Plaintiffs, and the requirements are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Count III sets forth the same as applied challenge as Count II, but solely on behalf of Plaintiff-Voters, as a violation of their rights to cast effective votes.
The Defendants are Ruth Johnson, in her official capacity as Michigan's Secretary of State, and Sally Williams, in her official capacity as the Director of Michigan's Bureau of Elections (collectively, "the State").
Plaintiffs seek an order: (1) declaring Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.590c(2) unconstitutional on its face; (2) declaring §§ 168.590c(2), 168.544f, and 168.590b(4) unconstitutional "as applied in combination to Plaintiffs"; and (3) directing the State to place Graveline on the ballot as an independent candidate for Attorney General in the upcoming November 2018 election. They also seek an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
On August 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction; the motion is fully briefed. On August 22, 2018, the Court held a hearing. During the hearing, Plaintiffs abandoned their Count I facial challenge to § 168.590c(2). Thus, the Court need only analyze Plaintiffs' as applied challenge to the statutory scheme as set forth in Counts II and III.
"A district court must balance four factors when considering a motion for a preliminary injunction: (1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury absent the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graveline v. Benson
...6, 2018 general election ballot as an independent candidate for the Office of Michigan Attorney General." Graveline v. Johnson , 336 F. Supp. 3d 801, 817 (E.D. Mich. 2018).The district court issued its preliminary injunction after finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits......
-
Esshaki v. Whitmer
...effect of the applicable election regulations creates an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights."); Graveline v. Johnson , 336 F. Supp. 3d 801, 810 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (considering "the ‘combined effect’ of the challenged regulations, rather than each statute's requirement by itsel......
-
Acosta v. Wolf, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2528
...updated May 7, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/default.htm. 27. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B) (2020). 28. See, e.g., Graveline v. Johnson, 336 F. Supp. 3d 801, 816 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (mentioning plaintiff lobbied 231 volunteers and paid for a signature-gathering firm to help collect the 14,157 s......
-
Acosta v. Wolf
...No. 6, at p. 1. 67. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B) (2020). 68. Id. § 12102(1). 69. Id. § 12112. 70. Id. 71. See, e.g., Graveline v. Johnson, 336 F. Supp. 3d 801, 816 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (mentioning plaintiff lobbied 231 volunteers and paid for a signature-gathering firm to help collect the 14,157 si......