Libertarian Party of Mich. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 10 September 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 12–cv–12782.
• Citation: 905 F.Supp.2d 751
• Parties: LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN, Gary Johnson, and Denee Rockman–Moon, Plaintiffs, v. Ruth JOHNSON, Secretary of State of Michigan, in her official capacity, Defendant, Republican Party of Michigan, Intervenor/Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

905 F.Supp.2d 751

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN, Gary Johnson, and Denee Rockman–Moon, Plaintiffs,

v. Ruth JOHNSON, Secretary of State of Michigan, in her official capacity, Defendant,Republican Party of Michigan, Intervenor/Defendant.

Case No. 12–cv–12782.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

Sept. 10, 2012.

Gary Sinawski, Attorney at Law, Brooklyn, NY, Robert W. Roddis, Gross Pointe Farms, MI, for Plaintiffs.

Denise C. Barton, Nicole Grimm, State of Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendant.

Eric E. Doster, Foster, Swift, Peter H. Ellsworth, Dickinson Wright, Lansing, MI, for Intervenor/Defendant.

AMENDED ¹ OPINION AND ORDER

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT RUTH JOHNSON'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 4);

(2) GRANTING INTERVENOR–DEFENDANT REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 21); AND

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 6)

PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ruth Johnson's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4); Intervenor–Defendant Republican Party of Michigan's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21); and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 6).

A hearing was held on Thursday, September 6, 2012, at which Plaintiffs, Defendant Ruth Johnson and Intervenor–Defendant Republican Party of Michigan appeared and were heard. For the reasons that follow, the Court (1) GRANTS Defendant Ruth Johnson's Motion to Dismiss, (2) GRANTS Intervenor–Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (3) DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and (4) DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice.²

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Gary E. Johnson (“Gary Johnson”) ran for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in Michigan's February, 2012 presidential primary and lost. Gary Johnson now seeks to have his name placed on the ballot in Michigan as a candidate for President of the United States in the November 6, 2012 general election as the Libertarian Party nominee. Michigan statute MCL 168.695, known as the “sore loser statute,” provides that an individual who has placed his or her name on the primary ballot as a candidate for nomination of one political party is not eligible to run as a candidate for any other political party at the general election immediately following that primary. Pursuant to the sore loser statute, the Defendant Secretary of State has excluded Gary Johnson's name from the ballot for the upcoming November 6, 2012 general election as the Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States. Plaintiffs Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party of Michigan (“LPM”) and Denee Rockman–Moon (“Rockman–Moon”), the Chairperson of the LPM, filed this action claiming that application of the statute to Gary Johnson violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief invalidating Michigan's sore loser statute, both facially and as applied to Gary Johnson, that would require the placement of Gary Johnson's name as the Libertarian Party Candidate for President of the United States on the ballot in the upcoming November, 2012 general election.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts in this matter are undisputed. Plaintiff Gary Johnson resides in Santa Fe, New Mexico and served as governor of New Mexico from 1995–2003. (ECF No. 6, Pls.' Mot. Summ. Judg. Ex. B, July 27, 2012 Affidavit of Gary Johnson ¶ 1.) Throughout much of 2011, Gary Johnson sought the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. ( Id.¶ 3.)

In November, 2011, Gary Johnson's then-Republican campaign contacted the Michigan Secretary of State on several occasions to ensure that Gary Johnson would be recognized as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. In a November 8, 2011 Letter from Gary Johnson's campaign scheduler, Grant K. Huihui, to Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, Mr. Huihui stated that: “Governor Gary E. Johnson is fully committed to running a national campaign seeking the Republican nomination for the office of President of the United States of America. Governor Johnson has traveled through more than 35 states in his ongoing efforts to spread his message, while seeking the Republican nomination. Governor Gary E. Johnson respectfully requests to be placed on Michigan's primary election ballot.” (ECF No. 6–8, p. 9, Pls.' Mot. Summ. Judg. Ex. F, November 8, 2011 Letter to Ruth Johnson.)

On November 21, 2011, Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, pursuant to MCL § 168.614a(3), sent Gary Johnson a letter informing him that his name would be included on Michigan's Presidential Primary ballot as a candidate for the Republican party unless he filed an affidavit, no later than 4:00 p.m. (E.S.T.) on Friday, December 9, 2011, specifically stating that he was not a presidential candidate of the Republican party. (ECF No. 6–8, p. 11, Pls.' Mot. Summ. Judg. Ex. F, November 21, 2011 Letter to Gary Johnson.)

Gary Johnson subsequently attempted to withdraw from the Michigan presidential primary but his request, received by email at 4:03 p.m. on December 9, 2011, after the 4:00 p.m. statutory deadline set forth in MCL § 168.615a(1) had passed, was ineffective. (ECF No. 6–8, p. 1–2, Pls.' Mot. Summ. Judg. Ex. G, May 3, 2012 Letter to William W. Hall.) Because Gary Johnson did not timely submit an affidavit seeking to have his name removed from the ballot in compliance with the deadlines set forth in MCL § 168.615a(1), his name appeared on the ballot as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in Michigan's February, 2012 primary election. Gary Johnson never challenged, or took any legal action to reverse the Secretary of State's decision refusing his untimely request to remove his name from the Michigan primary ballot as a Republican party presidential candidate. Gary Johnson did not win the Republican party nomination.

At its Las Vegas convention held on May 3–6, 2012, the national Libertarian Party, a qualified political party under Michigan law, MCL § 168.560a, but not a major party, MCL § 168.16, nominated Gary Johnson as its candidate for President. (ECF No. 6–3, Gary Johnson Aff. ¶ 9.) Gary Johnson's nomination was subsequently ratified by the Defendant LPM and forwarded to the Michigan Secretary State for certification and inclusion of Gary Johnson's name on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot as the Libertarian Party candidate for president. Id. ¶ 10.

The Michigan Secretary of State disqualified Gary Johnson from appearing on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot as a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party based upon the Michigan “sore loser” law, which prohibits a candidate who appears on the primary ballot for one political party from appearing as a candidate for any other political party at the election following that primary:

Ineligibility of candidate at subsequent election.

No person whose name was printed or placed on the primary ballots or voting machines as a candidate for nomination on the primary ballots of 1 political party shall be eligible as a candidate of any other political party at the election following that primary.

MCL § 168.695.

Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant Secretary of State wrongfully refused to place Gary Johnson's name on the Michigan ballot for the November 6, 2012 general election as the Libertarian Party candidate for president because, inter alia, Michigan's sore loser statute does not apply to presidential candidates. Plaintiffs do not dispute that facially, by its clear and unambiguous terms, the statute can be read to apply to a presidential candidate such as Gary Johnson. Plaintiffs argue, however, that the statute should not be applied to presidential candidates because the “real candidates” in a presidential election are the candidates for presidential elector, not the presidential candidate. Plaintiffs also argue that application of the sore loser statute to Johnson's Libertarian Party candidacy for President of the United States violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEWA. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)—Motion to Dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a case where the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir.2007). But the court “need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.” Id. (quoting Gregory v. Shelby County, 220 F.3d 433, 446 (6th Cir.2000)). “[L]egal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations will not suffice.” Eidson v. State of Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir.2007).

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), the Supreme Court explained that “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level....” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff has failed to offer sufficient factual allegations that make the asserted claim plausible on its face. Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The Supreme Court clarified the concept of “plausibility” in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009):

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167...