Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Bridget M. McCormack Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Chief Justice Pro Tem: Richard H. Bernstein David F. Viviano Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kathryn L. Loomis LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN v SECRETARY OF STATE SENATE v SECRETARY OF STATE Docket Nos. 160907 and 160908. Argued on application for leave to appeal March 11, 2020. Decided December 29, 2020. In Docket No. 160907, the League of Women Voters of Michigan (LWV), three individual voters, and Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections (MFTE) (collectively, the LWV plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the Court of Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of State regarding 2018 PA 608, which made three sets of changes to the statutory procedures governing petition drives. First, it amended the standards in MCL 168.471 for determining the validity of a petition by requiring that not more than 15% of the signatures to be used could be those of registered electors from any one congressional district, and it also amended MCL 168.477 to prohibit the Board of State Canvassers from counting signatures of registered electors in a congressional district that exceeded the 15% limitation. Second, it amended MCL 168.482(7) to require that petitions include checkboxes to clearly indicate whether the circulator of the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer signature gatherer. Third, it amended MCL 168.482a to provide that anyone paid to gather signatures must, before circulating the petition, file an affidavit with the Secretary of State indicating that he or she is a paid signature gatherer. A few months after these amendments took effect, the Attorney General issued a written opinion that the amendments violated the state and federal Constitutions. Thereafter, the LWV plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State, seeking a declaratory judgment that the amendments were unconstitutional along the same lines as the Attorney General suggested. A few weeks after the LWV plaintiffs brought their action, in Docket No. 160908, the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives (the Legislature) also brought an action against the Secretary of State, requesting a declaratory judgment that the amendments were constitutional. The two cases were consolidated in the Court of Claims. The Secretary of State, represented by the Attorney General, did not dispute that some of the amendments were unconstitutional, and she also suggested that the Legislature might lack standing to bring its case. The Court of Claims, CYNTHIA D. STEPHENS, J., agreed that the Legislature did not have standing but nonetheless treated its submissions as amicus briefs because the Secretary of State was declining to defend the constitutionality of the amendments. On the merits, the Court of Claims held that the paid-circulator-affidavit requirement was constitutional but that the geographic-distribution and checkbox requirements were not. The LWV plaintiffs filed a bypass application in the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals