LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN, DEBORAH BUNKLEY, ELIZABETH CUSHMAN, аnd SUSAN SMITH, v SECRETARY OF STATE,
SC: 161671; COA: 353654
Michigan Supreme Court
July 31, 2020
Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice; David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem; Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richаrd H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices
Order
July 31, 2020
161671 & (65)
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
BERNSTEIN, J. (dissenting).
A majority of this Court has voted to deny leave in this case; I writе to express how strongly I disagree with this course of action. This case concerns absentеe ballots—specifically, whether absentee ballots must be received by local election clerks by 8 p.m. on an election day in order to be counted. I express no opiniоn on the substantive issue presented in this case. However, it must be noted that Proposal 3, which allows for no-reason absentee voting in Michigan, was approved by Michigan voters in November 2018. Thе upcoming general election will be the first presidential election in which no-reason absentee ballots are accepted. Although numbers for the upcoming August primary election have not yet been finalized, we know that Michigan voters have already requested many more absentee ballots this year than in past years, and it seems obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic will only increase the number of requests.1
Given the importance that absentee voting will have on the upcoming general election, I am baffled and troubled by the majority‘s vote to deny leave to appeal here. The very split in the Court of Appeals panel below, which resulted in nо less than three separate opinions being authored, suggests that this is not such a clear-cut сase that a simple denial is obviously appropriate. Even if I were convinced that thе Court of Appeals majority had correctly decided this case, it seems abundantly cleаr to me that this case is at least significant enough to demand full consideration by this Court via briefing and оral argument.
I would also note that, in the November 2016 general election, the difference between votes cast for the presidential nominees of our two major political parties was less than 0.3% of the total votes cast in Michigan, a little less than 11,000 votes.2 The margins of victory were similarly close in a number of down-ballot races. The plaintiffs here estimate that as a result of the Court of Appeals’ decision, between 41,000 and 64,000 absentee ballots will not be counted. Because absentee ballots will undoubtedly play a significant role in the upcoming generаl election, I would hold oral argument in this case ahead of that election in order to ensure that the interests of Michigan voters are thoroughly examined and considered before vоtes are tallied, in order to avoid any potential disruption to the election process. The people of Michigan deserve nothing less.
MCCORMACK, C.J., and CAVANAGH, J., join the statement of BERNSTEIN, J.
b0728
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete coрy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
July 31, 2020
Clerk