672 F. App'x 565
6th Cir.2016Background
- Nov. 8, 2016 presidential election: Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes; Michigan law permits recounts under Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.880 et seq.
- Nov. 30, 2016 Jill Stein petitioned for a statewide presidential recount; objections were filed and the State Board of Canvassers deadlocked on Dec. 2, so objections were rejected by operation of Mich. law.
- Michigan law imposes a two-business-day waiting period after the Board resolves objections before a recount may begin; that made the earliest statutory start Dec. 7, 2016.
- Federal law (3 U.S.C. § 5) creates a Dec. 13, 2016 deadline to resolve disputes over Electoral College appointments; plaintiffs alleged the waiting period would make timely completion impossible.
- Stein and voter Louis Novak sued in federal court seeking immediate start of the recount; the district court issued a TRO on Dec. 5 ordering the recount to begin that day. Defendants (Michigan GOP and AG Schuette) appealed and sought a stay.
- Sixth Circuit affirmed the TRO, holding plaintiffs had Article III standing, the TRO was appealable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the TRO; a dissent argued federal intrusion into state election process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to challenge waiting-period law | Stein/Novak invoked a state-created recount right; waiting period would render it effectively worthless, producing injury | Defendants argued plaintiffs lack concrete injury or cannot invoke federal court | Held: Plaintiffs had standing — injury in fact, traceable to waiting period, and redressable by TRO |
| Appealability of TRO | TRO required affirmative action (start recount early) so appealable | TROs generally not appealable; argue interlocutory | Held: TRO was appealable because it required affirmative action rather than preserving status quo |
| Appropriateness of TRO (injunction factors) | Waiting period would cause irreparable harm by making recount meaningless; strong showing of irreparable harm and at least colorable likelihood on merits under Anderson/Burdick | State argued waiting period allowed for judicial review and orderly process; harm to state and respect for state law weigh against TRO | Held: District court did not abuse discretion — irreparable harm was compelling, lowered likelihood-of-success requirement satisfied, TRO minimally disruptive |
| Abstention / state-court comity (Pullman/Burford) | Plaintiffs sought federal relief to prevent constitutional harm now; federal TRO addressed federal standards | Defendants urged abstention to allow state courts to decide state-law recount disputes | Held: Abstention inapplicable — Sixth Circuit did not decide state-law questions and applied federal TRO/constitutional standards only |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO, 473 U.S. 1301 (1985) (TROs generally not immediately appealable)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson/Burdick balancing approach)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (recognition that state-conferred election rights are fundamental)
- University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (TRO is extraordinary remedy to preserve status quo)
- Pullman Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (Pullman abstention doctrine)
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) (Burford abstention doctrine)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (state regulations of elections generally subject to minimal scrutiny if nondiscriminatory)
- Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2016) (application of Anderson/Burdick in Sixth Circuit)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2008) (protection of state-created voting rights)
- Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999 (6th Cir. 2006) (factors for TRO appealability and review of TRO)