Joseph Kishore v. Gretchen Whitmer, 972 F.3d 745

Plaintiffs Joseph Tanniru Kishore and Norissa Santa Cruz (Socialist Equality Party) sought to appear on Michigan’s presidential ballot as independent candidates by filing a qualifying petition.
Michigan’s normal signature threshold was 30,000 with geographic distribution requirements; a district court injunction in Graveline reduced the interim requirement to 12,000 signatures for independents.
Signatures had to be gathered within 180 days before the July 16 filing deadline (effective window here: Jan 18–Jul 16, 2020).
Michigan issued a COVID-19 Stay‑at‑Home Order on March 23 (extended through late May) and eased restrictions beginning June 1; plaintiffs had opportunity to gather signatures both before March 23 and after June 1.
Plaintiffs collected zero qualifying signatures, canceled in‑person campaign activity in March out of COVID concerns, sued in mid‑June seeking a preliminary injunction, and the district court denied relief; this appeal follows.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Michigan’s ballot‑access laws, as applied with COVID orders, impose a "severe" burden under Anderson‑Burdick	Stay‑at‑Home Order made signature gathering effectively impossible, so burden is severe and warrants strict scrutiny	Plaintiffs had pre‑order and post‑reopening opportunities; plaintiffs’ own choices contributed to lack of signatures; burden is intermediate	Intermediate burden (not severe); strict scrutiny not triggered
Whether the State’s interests justify the burden	Pandemic made compliance impossible, so state interests cannot justify exclusion	Signature thresholds and deadlines serve legitimate interests (avoid ballot overcrowding, frivolous candidates, ensure orderly elections)	State’s interests are legitimate and outweigh the intermediate burden
Whether preliminary injunction factors (including Purcell) favor emergency relief	Plaintiffs need immediate relief to appear on ballot	Altering election rules close to certification is disfavored; plaintiffs delayed and collected no signatures when possible	Balance of equities and timing favor the State; preliminary relief denied

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (framework for reviewing ballot‑access laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (balancing test for election‑regulation burdens)
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (standards for strict scrutiny when restrictions are severe)
Thompson v. DeWine, 959 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2020) (applying Anderson‑Burdick to COVID‑era ballot‑access claims)
Esshaki v. Whitmer, [citation="813 F. App'x 170"] (6th Cir. 2020) (found severe burden where stay‑home order persisted through deadline)
SawariMedia, LLC v. Whitmer, 963 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2020) (COVID restrictions and election law burdens analyzed)
Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019) (evaluating state interests in election regulations)
Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205 (2020) (lower federal courts should not change election rules close to an election)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (principle against last‑minute changes to election procedures)
Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942 (delay in seeking relief undermines emergency interventions)
Morgan v. White, 964 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2020) (timing and causation considerations in COVID‑era election disputes)
Graveline v. Benson, 430 F. Supp. 3d 297 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (district court order reducing Michigan’s signature requirement)