SAWARIMEDIA, LLC; DEBORAH PARKER; JUDY KELLOGG; PAUL ELY v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of Michigan; JOCELYN BENSON, Secretary of State of Michigan; JONATHAN BRATER, Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 2, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON MOTION: Heather S. Meingast, Erik A. Grill, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants.

Judge(s): NORRIS, CLAY, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint

This appeal is another in a series of cases concerning the interaction between several states’ stay-at-home orders and the signature requirements needed to gain access to the ballot. Plaintiffs are proponents of a criminal-justice reform initiative that they seek to place on the ballot for the 2020 Michigan general election. Defendants include the governor and other state officials, who continued to strictly enforce the signature requirement for initiatives even after the governor had issued an order requiring most Michigan residents to remain in their homes as part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

When officials told Plaintiffs that the signature requirement would still be enforced against them, they filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that the combination of the stay-at-home order and the signature requirement violates the First Amendment by creating a severe restriction on their access to the ballot. The district court agreed and enjoined the strict enforcement of the signature requirement. SawariMedia LLC v. Whitmer (SawariMedia I), No. 20-CV-11246, 2020 WL 3097266 (E.D. Mich. June 11, 2020). And while Defendants proposed a compromise remedy that included a several-weeks extension of the filing deadline, the district court rejected this proposal as insufficient. Defendants then appealed and now ask for an emergency stay.

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is denied. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal but direct the district court to address any further remedy proposed by Defendants by no later than July 15, 2020. If Defendants fail to propose a remedy that resolves the constitutional infirmity by that date, they will be precluded from enforcing the petition deadline against Plaintiffs, pending further review of any proposed remedy by this Court.

Attachments: