Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Johnson
833 F.3d 656
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michigan eliminated straight‑party (straight‑ticket) voting by enacting 2015 PA 268; the law took effect immediately and would remove the option for the Nov. 8, 2016 election. The law also included a $5 million appropriation for voting equipment.
- Straight‑party voting had been available in Michigan since 1891 and was used by a large share of voters (about 50% statewide; substantially higher rates in many majority‑African‑American jurisdictions).
- Plaintiffs (Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute, Common Cause, and individual voters) sued the Secretary of State alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the ADA; they moved for a preliminary injunction to block PA 268 from taking effect.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Equal Protection and Section 2 claims because eliminating straight‑party voting would (1) increase voting time and wait lines and (2) cause voter confusion, disproportionately burdening African‑American voters. The court did not find plaintiffs likely to succeed on the ADA claim.
- The Secretary sought a stay pending appeal from the Sixth Circuit. The panel denied the stay, concluding the Secretary had not met the burden to show she was likely to prevail on appeal or that she would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether elimination of straight‑party voting violates Equal Protection (Anderson/Burdick test) | PA 268 burdens voting by increasing ballot marking time, causing longer lines and confusion; burden falls more heavily on African‑American voters, so state interests do not justify the burden | Removing straight‑party voting affects only the manner of voting, not the right itself; many states do not offer straight‑party voting and the change is permissible | Court held plaintiff likely to succeed: burden is greater than rational‑basis review but less than strict scrutiny; state justifications (engagement, encouraging nonpartisan voting) were weak/unsubstantiated at this stage |
| Whether elimination of straight‑party voting violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (vote‑denial theory) | PA 268 imposes a discriminatory burden because African‑Americans disproportionately used straight‑party voting; the burden interacts with social/historical conditions to abridge voting opportunities | The Secretary argued the law is neutral and not a Section 2 violation; challenged plaintiffs’ evidence | Court found plaintiffs made a plausible Section 2 showing at the preliminary stage (disproportionate impact linked to conditions identified by Gingles), though the panel called this a closer question than Equal Protection |
| Whether irreparable harm and balance of equities favor a stay | Restriction on right to vote is irreparable; maintaining status quo (straight‑party option) avoids disenfranchisement for 2016 | State argued logistical disruption and need to proceed with new ballots | Court held irreparable injury to voters is presumed; maintaining 125‑year status quo imposes minimal state burden, so stay denied |
| Whether public interest favors a stay | Protecting voting rights and avoiding disenfranchisement serves public interest | State argued its interest in informed voting and orderly administration | Court held public interest favors denying stay because it preserves voting rights and avoids disenfranchisement for the imminent election |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (framework for assessing burdens on the right to vote; balancing test)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (requires consideration of character and magnitude of voting‑restriction injury and state interests)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (factors for analyzing Section 2 vote‑dilution and vote‑denial claims)
- Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (right to vote is fundamental)
- Service Employees Int’l Union Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2012) (stay factors and preliminary‑injunction balancing)
- Ohio State Conference of the NAACP v. Husted, 768 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2014) (discussed Section 2 framework for vote‑denial claims)