Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Johnson
209 F. Supp. 3d 935
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (four individuals and the Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute) challenged Public Act 268, which eliminates straight‑party (straight‑ticket) voting in Michigan, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement in the November 2016 election.
- Straight‑party voting permitted voters to select all partisan candidates with one mark; Michigan had allowed it for ~125 years and prior repeal attempts had been rejected by voters. P.A. 268 was enacted Dec. 16, 2015 and signed Jan. 5, 2016; an attached appropriation blocked referendum repeal.
- Plaintiffs submitted expert analysis (Metzger Report) showing straight‑party voting usage correlates with higher African‑American share of precincts; African‑American majority districts used straight‑party at higher rates (e.g., 67% in 2012, 73.5% in 2014).
- Plaintiffs and elections officials submitted affidavits that eliminating straight‑party voting will increase ballot completion time, lengthen lines, and create voter confusion (risking uncounted votes), with disproportionate effects in urban, predominantly African‑American communities.
- Defendant argued laches, Burford abstention, lack of federal jurisdiction, lack of standing (including for VRA and ADA claims), and that the state interests justify the law; Michigan appropriated $5 million to address anticipated problems.
- The court denied defendant’s procedural defenses, found plaintiffs have Article III standing (including associational/VRA standing), but likely not ADA standing, and granted the preliminary injunction after applying Anderson‑Burdick and Section 2 VRA analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laches | Challenge filed promptly after law enacted and before election; no undue delay | Plaintiffs waited after enactment; laches should bar relief | Denied — no unreasonable delay; laches inapplicable |
| Abstention (Burford) | Federal court should adjudicate federal constitutional and statutory voting claims | State law/policy matters counsel abstention | Denied — only federal claims; Burford not appropriate |
| Standing (Article III & VRA) | Individual plaintiffs and association members face imminent, disproportionate burdens (longer waits, confusion); association may sue for members | Injuries are speculative/generalized; association not an "aggrieved person" under VRA | Granted standing — concrete risk of injury; association has representational VRA standing |
| Merits — Equal Protection / Anderson‑Burdick | Elimination of straight‑party imposes burdens (time, confusion) disproportionately on African‑American voters; state interests are weak/tenuous | Law furthers voter deliberation/engagement and aligns with other states; appropriation addresses impacts | Plaintiffs likely to succeed — burdens outweigh state interests under Anderson‑Burdick |
| Merits — Voting Rights Act §2 | Law has disparate impact on African‑American voters and interacts with social/historical conditions (Senate Factors) | No discriminatory effect sufficient for §2 liability | Plaintiffs likely to succeed — §2 claim likely satisfied under totality of circumstances |
| ADA claims standing | N/A (Plaintiffs alleged ADA violations) | Plaintiffs not alleged to be individuals with disabilities; no third‑party standing shown | Denied — Plaintiffs lack ADA standing on current record |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (Equal Protection applies to the manner of exercising the franchise)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (Anderson balancing framework for election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (weighing character and magnitude of burdens on voting rights)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (minimal burdens must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (Senate Factors and linking burdens to social/historical conditions under VRA §2)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (public interest favors protecting the fundamental right to vote)
- Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (standing and reviewability of election directives)
- Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (Anderson‑Burdick application in voting cases)
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst. (Husted II), 768 F.3d 524 (discussing burdens and §2 analysis in voting‑regulation challenges)