Federal Appeals Court to Determine Standing of State Lawmakers in Michigan Election Case
Eleven Republican lawmakers argue that Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, along with other officials, has breached the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause.
In an important case awaiting a decision from the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 11 state legislators from Michigan assert that they possess the individual right to file a lawsuit against Governor Gretchen Whitmer and key election officials. They claim these officials have unlawfully encroached upon the authority of the state Legislature concerning the management of federal elections.
This lawsuit was initiated in response to citizen-driven initiatives that passed with substantial support in both 2018 and 2022, implementing significant modifications to the conduct of federal elections in Michigan.
The group of 11 appellants, all affiliated with the Republican party, maintains that they have been unjustly stripped of their voting rights concerning these regulations, alleging that Governor Whitmer and her co-defendants have failed to safeguard these rights.
The legislators claim that the defendants “support and enforce laws that violate the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution” and argue that any amendments passed are effectively null and void “when they directly or indirectly regulate federal elections.”
Whitmer’s legal representation contends that only the entire legislature, or at least a majority of it, can legitimately pursue such legal action.
Related Stories
The plaintiffs, which include two state senators and nine representatives, base their argument on Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part, “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
The defendants assert that the electorate, by utilizing the legally established initiative process as outlined in Article 12, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution, can propose and enact constitutional amendments and laws. They argue this grants the people an extension of legislative authority.
A Historic Case
“This case bears national significance and historic weight as it would mark the first occasion federal courts have acknowledged individual state legislator standing in cases involving the usurpation of state legislative authority under the Elections Clause regarding federal elections,” stated constitutional attorney Erick Kaardal, who represents the plaintiffs.
Kaardal informed The Epoch Times that if his clients succeed, “numerous federal and state executive overreaches against state legislative powers under the Elections Clause will be contested in federal court.”
The ballot initiatives in dispute led to amendments in the Michigan Constitution, facilitating automatic voter registration upon interaction with a secretary of state office, subsequently widening the scope to other departments. The changes eliminated photo ID mandates and lessened residency requirements.
Furthermore, these measures sanctioned Election Day voter registration, allowed no-reason absentee voting, enabled corrections on absentee ballot envelopes, and allowed voters to maintain their absentee status perpetually upon request.
Additionally, the initiatives firmly established absentee ballot drop boxes in the state constitution, introduced state-funded pre-paid postage for election envelopes, and authorized nine straight days of early voting at an expanded array of polling locations.
2 Different Views
At the time of the initiatives, Republicans raised concerns that the complex language of the proposals was deliberately ambiguous and confusing, warning that the amendments could undermine election integrity and security of the ballot.
Constitutional attorney Erick G. Kaardal. Courtesy Erick G. Kaardal
In contrast, Democrats argued that the amendments would simplify the voting process and result in increased voter turnout.
The legislators’ lawsuit alleges that the aforementioned actions, which had direct consequences on the execution of federal elections, were drafted, petitioned, and placed on the ballot without involvement or approval from the Legislature.
Officials from the offices of Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and Attorney General Dana Nessel did not provide comments when requested.
According to Kaardal, due to the Michigan Legislature’s inaction regarding the “unconstitutional” amendments from 2018 and 2022, the 11 legislators opted to pursue legal action.
“This lawsuit highlights a troubling period in Michigan where the Elections Clause was disregarded for the sake of convenience,” he remarked.
Kaardal asserted that through this legal endeavor, “the issues have been brought to federal court to rectify the constitutional challenges posed by the 2018 and 2022 amendments.”
He appealed to the federal judiciary “to fulfill their responsibilities” to ensure that the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution is upheld when state laws are developed concerning the regulation of federal elections.
