963 F.3d 595
6th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are sponsors of a criminal‑justice reform initiative seeking placement on Michigan’s 2020 general‑election ballot.
- Michigan issued COVID‑19 stay‑at‑home orders that limited in‑person circulation; state officials continued to enforce signature‑collection and filing‑deadline requirements for ballot initiatives.
- Plaintiffs sued in the Eastern District of Michigan alleging the combination of the stay‑at‑home order and signature requirements imposed a severe First Amendment burden; the district court enjoined strict enforcement of the signature requirement.
- Defendants proposed remedies in the district court (including extending the petition deadline to July 6 and counting signatures toward 2022) which the district court found inadequate and rejected.
- Defendants sought an emergency stay from the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit denied the stay, concluded defendants were unlikely to prevail on appeal, and ordered the district court to consider any further proposed remedy by July 15, 2020, warning that failure to cure would bar enforcement of the deadline pending further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stay‑at‑home order combined with signature requirements imposes a "severe" burden under Anderson‑Burdick | The combination severely restricts ballot access and thus triggers strict scrutiny | The burden is not severe; Thompson v. DeWine shows a stay is less restrictive and supports upholding Ohio‑style enforcement | Court held the burden is severe (consistent with Esshaki) and defendants are unlikely to win on the merits |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by rejecting the state’s proposed deadline extension remedy | Plaintiffs said the extension was insufficient to cure the constitutional violation | State argued a July 6 extension (or counting signatures for 2022) would cure the problem | Court held the proposed remedies were inadequate; district court did not abuse its discretion |
| Whether Anderson‑Burdick applies to initiative signature requirements (defendants’ en banc request) | Defendants urged that Anderson‑Burdick should not govern initiative signature rules | Defendants sought en banc review but acknowledged panel precedent foreclosed their position | Court declined to decide en banc here but noted the argument is foreclosed by existing Sixth Circuit precedent and took no position on the en banc petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on ballot access and political speech)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarifies balancing test for election‑law burdens on First Amendment rights)
- Thompson v. DeWine, 959 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2020) (stayed injunction against Ohio’s signature requirements and contrasted Ohio’s order with Michigan’s)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay‑of‑proceedings standards and merging of state harm with public‑interest factor)
- Daunt v. Benson, 956 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2020) (movant must show likelihood of success to obtain a stay)
- Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019) (applies Anderson‑Burdick to ballot initiative restrictions)
- Committee to Impose Term Limits v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 885 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2018) (applies Anderson‑Burdick framework to initiative procedures)
- Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006) (contrasting view questioning First Amendment protection for the act of making law by initiative)
- Marijuana Policy Project v. United States, 304 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (suggests use of ballot initiative may not implicate First Amendment in same way as campaign speech)