Priorities USA v. Nessel
Decision Date | 22 May 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 19-13341 |
Citation | 462 F.Supp.3d 792 |
Parties | PRIORITIES USA, et al., Plaintiffs v. Dana NESSEL, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Amanda Beane, Kevin J. Hamilton, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Christopher J. Bryant, Courtney Elgart, Marc E. Elias, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, Sarah Prescott, Salvatore Prescott, PLLC, Northville, MI, for Plaintiff Priorities USA.
Amanda Beane, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Christopher J. Bryant, Courtney Elgart, Marc E. Elias, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, Sarah Prescott, Salvatore Prescott, PLLC, Northville, MI, for Plaintiffs Rise, Inc., Detroit/Downriver Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute.
Erik A. Grill, Heather S. Meingast, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendant.
Plaintiff, Priorities USA, originally filed this action challenging two Michigan statutes, one governing the absentee ballot process in Michigan and the other governing transportation to polling places. (ECF No. 1). Defendant, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, moved to dismiss the complaint on December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 10). Shortly, thereafter, District Judge Marc A. Goldsmith, to whom this matter was previously assigned, entered an order allowing Priorities to file an amended complaint to address the issues raised in the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13). On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding two additional plaintiffs, Rise, Inc. and Detroit/Downriver Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute (DAPRI). (ECF No. 17). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 10, 2020. (ECF No. 27). This matter is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 40, 44). The Court held a hearing via video, pursuant to notice, on May 8, 2020. (ECF No. 56).
For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Counts III and VII are DISMISSED and all remaining counts are left intact.
Priorities is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation and a "voter-centric progressive advocacy and service organization." (ECF No. 17, PageID.92, ¶ 7). Its "mission is to build a permanent infrastructure to engage Americans by persuading and mobilizing citizens around issues and elections that affect their lives." Id. It engages in activity to "educate, mobilize, and turn out voters" in Michigan, and states that it "expects to" make expenditures and contributions towards those objectives in upcoming Michigan state and federal elections. Id.
Rise is also a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that "runs statewide advocacy and voter mobilization programs in Michigan and California, as well on a number of campuses nationwide." (ECF No. 17, PageID.93, ¶ 8). Rise claims that "efforts to empower and mobilize students as participants in the political process ... are critical to Rise's mission because building political power within the student population is a necessary condition to achieving its policy goals." Id. Rise launched its second state-specific campaign in Michigan in 2019, and says it has eleven student organizers who are paid to organize their campuses including voter education and turnout activities. Rise plans to continue this program through the 2020 elections. Id. at 9. This effort has included and will continue to include engaging their fellow students in grassroots voter education, registration, and turnout activities, including on-campus, get-out-the-vote drives and canvasses. Id.
DAPRI is a local chapter of a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. It is a membership organization "with a mission to continue to fight for Human Equality and Economic Justice and to seek structural changes through the American democratic process." (ECF No. 17, PageID.95, ¶ 14). It has members who are "involved in voter registration, get-out-the-vote activities, political and community education, lobbying, legislative action, and labor support activities in Michigan. Id. DAPRI's members have "provided rides" to and from the polls for the community on election day and intends to continue to do so and to expand this work in future elections. Id. at ¶ 16. DAPRI acknowledges that Proposal 3 makes absentee voting available to all, and says that it would like to educate voters about the opportunity to vote absentee. (ECF No. 17, PageID.96, ¶ 17).
The Absentee Ballot Law provides that, in order to receive an AV ballot, a voter must request an application and submit that application to the voter's local clerk. For both primaries and regular elections, an elector may apply for an AV ballot at any time during the 75 days preceding the primary or election. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.759(1) - (2). In both cases, "the elector shall apply in person or by mail with the clerk" of the township or city in which the elector is registered. Id. Subsection 759(3) provides that:
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.759(3) - (5)
Where a form application is used, under § 759(5), the "application shall be in substantially the following form," which then provides the body of the form and includes a general "warning" and a "certificate" portion for "a registered elector" delivering a completed application for a voter. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.759(5). The warning must state that:
Similarly, the certificate for a registered elector returning an AV ballot application must state that:
Under § 759(6), the application form must include the following instructions for an applicant:
Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.759(6).
Consistent with these statutes, § 759(8) provides that "[a] person who is not authorized in this act and who both distributes absent voter ballot applications to absent voters and returns those absent voter ballot applications to a clerk or assistant of the clerk is guilty of a misdemeanor." Mich. Comp Laws § 168.759(8). Section 931 also provides for penalties associated with distributing and returning AV ballot applications. See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.931(1)(b)(iv) and (1)(n).
Based on these provisions, there are two ways to apply for an AV ballot: (1) a written request signed by the voter, and (2) on an AV ballot application form provided for that purpose. In both cases, the voter applies by returning a written request or form...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DSCC v. Simon, A20-1017
...a setting distinct from the ballot initiative process considered in Buckley and Meyer . See, e.g. , Priorities USA v. Nessel , No. 19-13341, 462 F.Supp.3d 792, 812 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2020) (applying Buckley - Meyer and distinguishing "cases involving the mere administrative process or the ......
-
VoteAmerica v. Schwab
...Fla. 2006) ; see also Democracy N.C. v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections, 476 F. Supp. 3d 158 (M.D. N.C. 2020) ; Priorities USA v. Nessel, 462 F. Supp. 3d 792 (E.D. Mich. 2020).Accepting their factual allegations as true, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that HB 2332 violates their First Ame......
-
Ark. United v. Thurston
...and organizations asserting that Section 208 extends to voters with limited English proficiency. See Priorities USA v. Nessel , 462 F. Supp. 3d 792, 816 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded their claim that Section 208 preempted a state law placing additional restric......
-
Democracy N.C. v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections
...plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Texas interpreter assistance law under Section 208); Priorities USA v. Nessel, Case No. 19-13341, 462 F. Supp. 3d 792, 815–16 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2020) (addressing the plaintiffs’ claim that Section 208 preempted Michigan's absentee ballot assistance......