964 N.W.2d 816
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans, Detroit/Downriver A. Philip Randolph Institute, and three individual retired voters) sued the Secretary of State and Attorney General challenging three absentee-voting rules for the 2020 general election: (1) ballots must be received by 8:00 p.m. on election day to be counted; (2) third-party possession/delivery of another voter’s ballot is criminally restricted to certain family/household members; and (3) voters must affix postage to mailed return envelopes.
- Plaintiffs alleged that COVID-19 and USPS slowdowns would unconstitutionally burden absentee voting and sought declaratory relief and injunctions (including counting ballots postmarked by election day but received within 14 days).
- The Court of Claims granted as‑applied relief: enjoined the receipt deadline and the ballot‑handling restriction (limited suspension of the handling restriction from 5:01 p.m. the Friday before the election through polls closing if the voter approved) and allowed timely‑postmarked ballots to be counted up to 14 days after the election; it denied a prepaid‑postage mandate.
- The Executive defendants declined to appeal; the Michigan Legislature successfully intervened and appealed the Court of Claims’ permanent injunctions.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the Legislature had standing, concluded plaintiffs’ challenge was facial rather than purely as‑applied, and found the challenged statutes constitutional; it vacated the injunctions and remanded for entry of summary disposition for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legislature's standing to appeal | Legislature lacks standing because it is not an "aggrieved party" | Legislature may defend its statutes and has concrete institutional interest after Executive declined to appeal | Legislature has standing to appeal; intervention appropriate |
| Facial vs as‑applied characterization | Claims arise from 2020 facts and COVID‑related mail delay; should be treated as as‑applied | Relief sought would apply to all absentee voters, so analysis should be facial | Court of Appeals: plaintiffs’ requested relief reaches beyond their facts; challenge is facial |
| Ballot‑receipt deadline (must be received by 8:00 p.m.) | Deadline, combined with USPS delays and COVID, unconstitutionally burdens absentee voting | Deadline is facially valid; preserves election integrity and is permissible regulation | Deadline survives facial attack; Court of Appeals follows League II and upholds the deadline |
| Ballot‑handling restrictions (who may possess/deliver ballots) | Restrictions disallow third‑party collection and, with clerk pickup limited after Fri 5:00 p.m., risk disenfranchising home‑bound voters during pandemic | Restrictions protect against fraud and are reasonable, nondiscriminatory; other options (drop boxes, family/household, curbside, clerk assistance before Fri 5:00) mitigate burden | Restrictions survive facial challenge under Burdick balancing; not an unconstitutional burden; injunction improper |
| Injunctive relief (prelim & permanent injunctions) | Injunctions necessary to prevent imminent disenfranchisement for 2020 election | Injunctions were overbroad and unsupported because statutes constitutional and other remedies exist | Preliminary injunction moot after final decision; permanent injunction was an abuse of discretion because no constitutional violation; injunctions reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Federated Ins. Co. v. Oakland Co. Rd. Comm’n, 475 Mich 286 (Mich.) (standing/aggrievement requirements for appeals)
- In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich 1 (Mich.) (election‑law review and Burdick balancing framework)
- John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (U.S.) (distinguishing facial and as‑applied challenges by examining relief’s reach)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S.) (facial/as‑applied overlap acknowledged)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S.) (balance test for election regulation scrutiny)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S.) (state interest in preventing voter fraud)
- Taylor v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 468 Mich 1 (Mich.) (presumption of constitutionality of statutes)
- Bonner v. City of Brighton, 495 Mich 209 (Mich.) (definition and scope of as‑applied challenges)