430 F.Supp.3d 297
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Christopher Graveline sought to run as an independent for Michigan Attorney General in 2018 and failed to meet Michigan’s ballot-access requirements; he and three voter-plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State and Director of Elections challenging the combined effect of three statutes: Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.590c(2) (110-day filing deadline), 168.544f (30,000-signature minimum), and 168.590b(4) (geographic distribution requirement).
- Michigan requires 30,000 valid signatures (obtained within 180 days) and at least 100 signatures in each of at least half the State’s 14 congressional districts; major-party nominees are chosen at conventions much later, so independents must collect signatures before major-party candidates are known.
- Graveline began collecting signatures in June 2018, gathered ~14,157 signatures (7,899 volunteer; ~6,000 via paid firm at $6/signature), was rejected for not reaching 30,000; the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The district court previously granted a preliminary injunction placing Graveline on the 2018 ballot; the Sixth Circuit denied a stay, recognizing the combined scheme as a severe burden.
- On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court applied Anderson–Burdick, found the combined rules severely burdened First and Fourteenth Amendment associational and voting rights, and held the 30,000-signature requirement was not narrowly tailored.
- Remedy: the court permanently enjoined enforcement of the three provisions in combination and, as an interim measure pending legislative action, reduced the signature requirement to 12,000 (keeping the same deadline and distribution rule).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Standing | Graveline and voters: case not moot; controversy likely to recur; plaintiffs retain standing to challenge statutes prospectively. | State: case moot because 2018 election ended and Graveline was put on the ballot. | Not moot under "capable of repetition, yet evading review"; plaintiffs have Article III standing. |
| Severity of burden (Anderson–Burdick) | Combined effect of early 110-day deadline, 30,000-signature requirement, and distribution rule severely burdens independent candidates and their supporters. | Burden minimal; Graveline failed mainly because he started late; 30,000 is reasonable relative to population. | Combined effect is a severe burden on associational and voting rights; strict scrutiny applies. |
| State interests / Narrow tailoring | 30,000 is arbitrary and not narrowly tailored; historical record shows near-total exclusion of independents. | Signature threshold, distribution, and deadline protect against ballot overcrowding, voter confusion, frivolous candidates, and administrative needs; deadline and distribution are tailored. | Deadline and geographic distribution found narrowly tailored; 30,000-signature requirement is not narrowly tailored to compelling interests and thus unconstitutional in combination. |
| Remedy | Plaintiffs asked for injunction and a 5,000-signature remedy. | State urged legislative role in setting signature levels; opposed court-imposed permanent numeric rule. | Permanent injunction against enforcing the three provisions in combination; interim remedy reduces signature floor to 12,000 (same deadline and distribution) until legislature acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (recognizing fundamental associational and voting rights implicated by ballot-access rules)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Anderson–Burdick balancing framework for election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (level of scrutiny depends on severity of burden)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (strict scrutiny for severe burdens on political association)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir.) (evaluate combined effect of filing deadlines and signature requirements)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (use historical evidence to assess whether independent candidates can realistically qualify)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (precedent on ballot-access standards)
- Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (write-in access is not an adequate substitute for ballot placement)
- Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (invalidating disparate signature requirements under equal protection)
- Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.) (early filing deadline can be a severe burden)
- Green Party of Georgia v. Kemp, 171 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (district court reduced an onerous signature requirement as a remedy)
- Graveline v. Johnson, [citation="747 F. App'x 408"] (6th Cir.) (denying stay; recognizing combined burden as severe)