Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 09 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-11844 |
| Citation | 326 F.Supp.3d 532 |
| Parties | MICHIGAN STATE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, Mary Lansdown, Dion Williams and Common Cause, Plaintiffs, v. Ruth JOHNSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Mary Ellen Gurewitz, Sachs Waldman, Detroit, MI, Mark C. Brewer, Goodman Acker, Southfield, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Adam L.S. Fracassi, Michigan Attorney General, Denise C. Barton, Elizabeth R. Husa Briggs, Joseph Yung-Kuang Ho, Kendell S. Asbenson, Rock A. Wood, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Erik A. Grill, Michigan Department of Attorney General Public Employment, Elections and Tort, Lansing, MI, for Defendant.
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, United States District Judge
Contents
1. Lower Levels of Literacy and PA 268...549
In early 2016, Michigan passed Senate Bill ("SB") 13, which eliminated straight-ticket voting. 2015 Mich. Pub. Acts 268 ("PA 268"). Plaintiffs Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute, Common Cause, Mary Lansdown, Dion Williams, and Erin Comartin then sued Ruth Johnson, Michigan Secretary of State ("the Secretary") in May 2016. See Dkt. No. 1. The Plaintiffs raised both constitutional and statutory claims. See id.
This case proceeded to trial, where the Court heard opening statements and then examined the parties' briefs, along with the voluminous record.
For the reasons detailed below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction on PA 268.
The Court cautions that its holdings are specific to this litigation. The Court's only charge here is to assess the constitutionality and legality of PA 268 based on the election laws and the voting patterns of demographics, in Michigan, as they exist today. The Court appreciates the "vigilant respect" due to the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution. Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted , 834 F.3d 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2016). But "[f]ederal judicial remedies, of course, are necessary where a state law impermissibly infringes the fundamental right to vote." Id. Such remedies are necessary in this case, as the Court will explain herein.
By voting a straight-ticket (or straight-party) ballot, Michigan residents can vote for all the candidates of a given political party through shading in one oval, as opposed to voting for each candidate by shading in, say, eighteen ovals. Dkt. No. 146, p. 2 (Pg. ID 4380); see also Dkt. No. 1-15, p. 9 (Pg. ID 288). Michigan residents must also vote for nonpartisan offices and proposals, sometimes as many as thirty-seven nonpartisan offices and eighteen proposals. Dkt. No. 1-15, p. 9 (Pg. ID 288). The straight-party option only streamlines voting for partisan offices; Michigan residents must vote for each nonpartisan office and proposal individually.
Since 1891, Michigan residents have had the option of straight-ticket voting. 1891 Mich. Pub. Acts. 190 § 14. In this 127-year span, Michigan legislators have tried to abolish the practice three times.
Twice, Michigan voters defeated by referendum laws that would have eliminated straight-party voting: first in 1964 and second in 2001. See 1964 Mich. Pub. Acts. 240; 2001 Mich. Pub. Acts. 269. On both occasions, voters demonstrated an overwhelming preference for keeping straight-ticket voting. Michigan voters repealed 1964 PA 240 by a vote of approximately 66% (1,515,875) to 34% (795,546). Dkt. No. 146, p. 2 (Pg. ID 4380). And they repealed 2001 PA 269 by a vote of roughly 60% (1,775,043) to 40% (1,199,236). Id. at p. 3 (Pg. ID 4381).
The third attempt at eliminating straight-ticket voting occurred in December 2015, when the Michigan Legislature passed SB 13. Id. Governor Rick Snyder signed the bill into law on January 5, 2016 and it became effective immediately. Dkt. No. 102-8, pp. 2 (Pg. ID 2083). SB 13 was enrolled as PA 268. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 146, p. 3 (Pg. ID 4381). PA 268 includes a $5 million appropriation for "purchas[ing] voting equipment to implement the elimination of straight party ticket voting."1 PA 268, Sec. 795c.(2). This appropriation is for the purchase of voting booths, which can cost just $15. Dkt. No. 147, pp. 34–35 (Pg. ID 4449–50). The appropriation has additional significance: it prevents a referendum on PA 268—and referenda had undone previous laws eradicating straight-party voting. See Mich. United Conservation Clubs v. Sec'y of State , 464 Mich. 359, 630 N.W.2d 297, 298 (2001).
Because of this litigation, PA 268 has yet to cover an election. On May 27, 2016, five months after PA 268 had become law, the Plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Secretary from implementing PA 268. Dkt. No. 4. In requesting the preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs alleged that PA 268 violates the Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA").2 And on July 22, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request, finding that PA 268 likely violated the Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the VRA. See Johnson I , 209 F.Supp.3d 935 ; see also Dkt. No. 30.
Then, on August 15, 2016, this Court denied the Secretary's motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. See Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson , Case No. 16-cv-11844, 2016 WL 4267828 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2016). Two days later, the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary's motion for a stay pending appeal of this Court's orders granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. See Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson , 833 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2016) (" Johnson II ").
On October 16, 2017, the Secretary moved for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 102. As the Court denied the Secretary's motion, this case proceeded to trial.3 See Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson , Case No. 16-cv-11844, 2018 WL 493184, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2018) (" Johnson III ").
Michigan State Senator Marty Knollenberg, a Republican, introduced SB 13 in January 2015. Dkt. No. 146, p. 5 (Pg. ID 4383). When Knollenberg introduced the bill, he did not have sufficient votes for its passage. Dkt. No. 137-4, pp. 6–7 (Pg. ID 3270–71). In seeking votes, he relied on others, including Ronna Romney McDaniel and Ronald Weiser. Id. McDaniel became chairperson of the Michigan Republican Party in February 2015, one month after Knollenberg introduced the bill. Dkt. No. 146, p. 5 (Pg. ID 4383). Weiser, on the other hand, held no public office or official role in the Republican Party during this period. Id. at p. 6 (Pg. ID 4384). But he was chairperson of the Michigan Republican Party from 2009 to 2011 and holds that position today. Id.
Knollenberg explained his reliance on McDaniel, saying Dkt. No. 137-4, p. 6 (Pg. ID 3270). McDaniel helped Knollenberg obtain votes by, for example, connecting Knollenberg with Weiser. See id. at pp. 19–20 (Pg. ID 3283–84).
And Knollenberg kept McDaniel informed as to his communications with Weiser, as indicated by a March 2015 text message which Knollenberg sent to McDaniel. Id. According to Knollenberg, Weiser had confirmed that he was working to secure the Governor's support for SB 13, and that the Chair of the Michigan Senate Elections Committee, David Robertson, would support SB 13 if the Governor confirmed that he would sign the bill. Id. at p. 19 (Pg. ID 3283).
Knollenberg continued to coordinate with Weiser in the following months. In May 2015, Weiser emailed Knollenberg asking for "a whip count," or in layman's terms, the number of Michigan Senators who would support SB 13. Id. at p. 21 (Pg. ID 3285). Knollenberg replied "I will work on it ASAP." Id.
Beyond connecting Knollenberg with political operatives, McDaniel worked to pass SB 13 by seeking Republican lawmakers' support for the bill. For instance, she urged Robertson and Lisa Posthumus Lyons, then-Chair of the House Elections Committee, to support SB 13. Id. at p. 20 (Pg. ID 3284). McDaniel also told Knollenberg that she would speak with the Governor to secure his approval. Id. at pp. 19–20 (Pg. ID 3283–84).
McDaniel vigorously supported SB 13 for two reasons: (1) she thought it would help the Republican Party win elections; and (2) she believed it was good policy. In her words: Dkt. No. 108-15, p. 7 (Pg. ID 2632). McDaniel found SB 13 beneficial for the Republican Party, as "if one party is using [straight-party voting] more than the other and they're...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tex. Alliance for Retired Ams. v. Hughs
...rights must be weighed "against the state's asserted interest and chosen means of pursuing it." Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson , 326 F. Supp. 3d 532, 556 (E.D. Mich. 2018). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ undue burden claims survive Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ......