992 F.3d 524
6th Cir.2021Background
- Michigan law required independent statewide candidates to submit a qualifying petition with 30,000 valid signatures, including at least 100 registered voters from each of at least half of the State’s 14 congressional districts, with signatures collected within 180 days and the petition filed by the 110th day before the general election.
- Major-party nominees for attorney general were chosen at party conventions that could occur after the independent filing deadline, creating a timing asymmetry between independents and party nominees.
- Christopher Graveline sought to run as an independent for Michigan Attorney General in 2018, began gathering signatures in June, collected 14,157 signatures (with volunteers and paid assistance), and was rejected because his petition did not reach 30,000 signatures by the deadline.
- Plaintiffs sued asserting First and Fourteenth Amendment claims (speech, association, equal protection, due process). The district court granted preliminary and then permanent relief, finding the combined scheme unconstitutional, and issued an interim rule allowing statewide independent candidates to qualify with 12,000 signatures.
- The Sixth Circuit applied the Anderson–Burdick framework, held the combined effect of the filing deadline, 30,000-signature requirement, and geographic distribution requirement imposed a severe burden on independents and their supporters, found the State failed strict scrutiny, and affirmed the district court’s judgment and interim remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing & mootness | Graveline and voter-plaintiffs had standing at filing; case fits "capable of repetition, yet evading review." | Placement on 2018 ballot and election mooted claims; plaintiffs must maintain standing. | Plaintiffs had standing at filing; case not moot under the capable-of-repetition exception. |
| Burden under Anderson–Burdick | The combination of early filing deadline, 30,000-signature threshold, and geographic requirement severely burdens independents and like-minded voters. | Requirements are reasonable and not severe; must be assessed individually. | The combined effect imposes a severe burden on First Amendment associational and voting rights. |
| State interests / tailoring | Even conceding State interests (orderly elections, preventing overcrowding/frivolous candidates), the State cannot show the 30,000 threshold (combined with the early deadline) is narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means. | The rules ensure a modicum of statewide support, prevent overcrowding/frivolous candidates, and the filing deadline is necessary for orderly administration. | Strict scrutiny applies; the State failed to justify the 30,000 requirement in combination as narrowly tailored to compelling interests. |
| Remedy / interim relief | Court may craft an interim, narrowly tailored remedy to restore ballot access pending legislative action. | District court abused discretion by lowering numeric threshold and failing to set a new maximum. | District court did not abuse discretion in imposing a temporary 12,000-signature requirement and denying defendants’ requested amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson–Burdick balancing for election restrictions)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (level of scrutiny depends on magnitude of burden)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (associational and voting rights fundamental)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (States may require a modicum of support to access ballot)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (consideration of ballot-access history and effects)
- Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (States must use least drastic means in ballot-access rules)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (combined-effect analysis; severe-burden precedent)
- Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2005) (upholding an early filing deadline when deadlines are similar for all candidates)
- Libertarian Party of Ky. v. Grimes, 835 F.3d 570 (6th Cir. 2016) (incidental costs of petitioning ordinarily do not equal exclusion)
- Kishore v. Whitmer, 972 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 2020) (application of Anderson–Burdick during COVID-19; intermediate burden analysis)