336 F. Supp. 3d 801
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- Christopher Graveline sought to run as an independent candidate for Michigan Attorney General in 2018; Michigan law required independent statewide candidates to file 110 days before the general election and submit at least 30,000 signatures (including ≥100 signatures in each of half of the 14 congressional districts).
- Graveline began collecting signatures June 7, 2018, retained a paid vendor, and collected roughly 14,157 signatures (7,899 submitted) but fell short of the statutory threshold; the Bureau of Elections rejected his July 19, 2018 filing as incomplete.
- Graveline and three voter-supporters sued Secretary of State Ruth Johnson and the Director of the Bureau of Elections, asserting First and Fourteenth Amendment claims challenging the statutes as applied in combination (Counts II and III); a facial challenge was abandoned.
- Plaintiffs argued the combined early-deadline, high-signature, and geographic-distribution requirements operate as an effective, longstanding bar to independent statewide candidates and therefore severely burden ballot access, association, and effective-vote rights.
- The State defended the statutes on grounds of ensuring a "modicum of support," preventing ballot clogging, voter confusion, and preserving electoral integrity; it relied on prior cases addressing similar numeric requirements but did not contest expert data or address the statutes’ combined effect.
- The district court found the combined statutory requirements severely burdened Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, granted the preliminary injunction, and ordered the State to accept Graveline’s petition for validation and place him on the ballot if he has at least 5,000 valid signatures (including ≥100 valid in each of half the congressional districts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan's combined early-filing deadline and signature/distribution requirements for independent statewide candidates severely burden First and Fourteenth Amendment rights | Graveline: the early deadline plus 30,000-signature and district-distribution rules — taken together — function as an absolute bar to independent statewide candidates and thus severely burden ballot access, association, and effective-vote rights | State: requirements are justified by compelling/important interests (demonstrating a modicum of support, preventing ballot clogging/voter confusion, preserving electoral integrity); write-in option and comparisons to other upheld 30,000-requirements suffice | The court held the combined scheme severely burdens Plaintiffs’ rights and triggers strict scrutiny (Anderson–Burdick analysis favors Plaintiffs) |
| Whether the State articulated sufficiently precise, compelling interests narrowly tailored to justify the severe burden | Graveline: the State's asserted interests are generalized, not shown to necessitate the breadth of the restrictions; historic exclusion of independents undermines the State's justification | State: asserts integrity, screening frivolous candidates, preventing voter confusion, and requiring a modicum of statewide support | The court found the State’s justifications generalized and not narrowly tailored; they failed to overcome the severe burden |
| Whether alternative means (e.g., write-in candidacy) provide adequate substitute access | Graveline: write-in is inadequate; historical record shows no independent statewide candidate has qualified since 1988, so alternatives are ineffective | State: write-in option and filing deadline differences suffice as alternatives | The court held write-in access is not an adequate substitute and no other realistic alternative existed |
| Appropriate equitable remedy given as-applied unconstitutionality | Graveline: place him on the ballot or provide a remedial signature threshold to balance interests | State: argued against wholesale placement without verification; urged deference to statutory scheme | The court ordered Graveline may refile immediately; if he has ≥5,000 valid signatures (and ≥100 in half of congressional districts) his name must be placed on the ballot; the court declined to invalidate the statutes entirely |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (recognizing associational and effective-vote rights implicated by ballot access rules)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson–Burdick framework for evaluating burdens on ballot access)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (level of scrutiny depends on degree of burden imposed)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (combined-effect inquiry on ballot-access burdens)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (historical record of candidate success is informative when assessing burden)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971) (evaluation of whether election laws freeze the political status quo)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (severe burdens must be narrowly tailored to compelling interests)
- Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (equal protection concerns where numeric disparities in signature requirements are unexplained)