958 N.W.2d 861
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: Promote the Vote (PTV) and Priorities USA & Rise (Priorities USA plaintiffs) challenged Michigan election rules enacted after Proposal 3 (2018) amending Mich. Const. art. 2, §4.
- Proposal 3 added rights including automatic voter registration (AVR) via Secretary of State transactions and a 14-day pre-election in-person registration that requires “proof of residency.”
- The Legislature enacted MCL 168.497 to define “proof of residency,” list acceptable documents (e.g., current MI driver’s license/ID or utility/bank/government documents), and require that some late registrants receive a marked "challenged" ballot (which is counted but marked for potential later inspection in contested elections).
- Plaintiffs alleged MCL 168.497(2)–(5), the challenged-ballot procedure, and the Secretary’s AVR practice unduly burden the self-executing constitutional rights in art. 2, §4(1) and violate equal protection; Priorities USA sought a preliminary injunction.
- The Court of Claims granted summary disposition for the Secretary and Legislature, denied plaintiffs’ motions; Michigan Court of Appeals consolidated appeals and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 168.497’s legislative definition of "proof of residency" impermissibly adds requirements to self-executing art. 2, §4(1)(f) | Statute narrows and substitutes proof-of-identity for residency, unduly curtailing the constitutional right to register during the 14-day period. | Legislature may supplement self-executing constitutional provisions by defining undefined terms (like "proof of residency") to preserve election integrity. | Held: Definition is a permissible supplement, not an unconstitutional burden. |
| Whether MCL 168.497(5)’s requirement that some late registrants receive a "challenged" ballot violates the right to a regular/secret ballot | Challenged ballots are not regular/absent ballots and compromise secrecy and immediate eligibility. | A challenged ballot is a regular or absent ballot merely marked (and concealed) for potential later review; contents remain secret except in limited contested-election circumstances. | Held: Challenged ballots satisfy §4(1)(a) and §4(1)(f); any burden is minimal and justified. |
| Whether the Secretary’s AVR practice (registering 17½+ applicants) violates §4(1)(d) | AVR as applied to 17½-year-olds improperly enlarges or burdens constitutional rights. | AVR follows statute (MCL 168.492) and the Constitution grants AVR to those who are "electors qualified to vote," and statute authorizes registration at 17½. | Held: AVR policy is consistent with statute and does not unduly burden §4(1)(d). |
| Whether MCL 168.497 violates equal protection | The statute treats similarly situated late registrants differently and will disenfranchise many (especially young or student voters); strict scrutiny required. | The law is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation supported by the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud and preserving election integrity; apply Burdick balancing. | Held: No severe burden; law is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction justified by important state interests and does not violate equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich 1 (2007) (Michigan Supreme Court guidance on election-law burdens and advisory doctrine)
- Bonner v. Brighton, 495 Mich 209 (2014) (standards for review of constitutional questions and facial challenges)
- Wolverine Golf Club v. Secretary of State, 384 Mich 461 (1971) (permissible legislative supplementation of self-executing constitutional provisions)
- Council of Orgs. & Others for Ed. About Parochiaid, Inc. v. Governor, 455 Mich 557 (1997) (rigorous standard for facial challenges)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for election regulations: severity of burden vs. state interests)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (election laws inevitably affect voting rights; contextual scrutiny required)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (constitutional protection for equal participation in elections)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (photo-ID burdens and assessment of inconvenience vs. substantial burden)
- Belcher v. Mayor of Ann Arbor, 402 Mich 132 (1978) (right to a secret ballot is protected but not absolute)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 466 Mich 142 (2002) (judicial role: interpret but not rewrite legislative policy)