Michigan Supreme Court strikes down law that made ballot petitions harder - MLive.com
LANSING, MI — The Michigan Supreme Court struck down parts of a Republican-led 2018 law Monday that made collecting signatures for voter-led ballot initiatives more difficult.
In the majority opinion in the case, League of Women Voters v. Secretary of State, Justice Megan Cavanagh said the high court agreed with a Court of Appeals decision in 2020 which ruled certain provisions of the 2018 law are unconstitutional, and further, that the state Legislature doesn’t have the right to challenge the constitutionality in court.
The Michigan Supreme Court struck down parts of the 2018 law, which limited the proportion of signatures ballot initiatives collected to 15% per Congressional district and added an affidavit requirement and checkbox distinguishing paid circulators.
Then-Gov. Rick Snyder signed the law on his last day in office. In 2019, the League of Women Voters, Progress Michigan, the Coalition to Close Lansing Loopholes and Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Legislature and Michigan Secretary of State to challenge it.
The court ultimately deemed the provision geographically limiting signatures to 15% per congressional district unconstitutional on Monday, along with the requirement that paid signature gatherers file an affidavit with the state. It held up, however, a requirement that circulators check a box on petitions saying whether they are paid.
Some have argued that the checkbox requirement may make a difference to voters during the petition signature collection phase, as well as at the polls to know if the effort is being led by a grassroots volunteer organization or a potentially well-funded one.
Justice Richard Bernstein agreed with the majority opinion in large part but dissented to the checkbox requirement. The provision requires paid signature gatherers, before circulating any petition, to file a signed affidavit with the Secretary of State indicating that they are paid signature gatherers.
While he agreed that this requirement was subject to review, he would have held that the strength of the governmental interest was insufficient to overcome the small burden the checkbox requirement imposed, given that the state did not identify how the presence of a checkbox that imparted so little information would advance its vaguely stated interest in transparency.
Justice Brian Zahra, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the majority that the geographic-distribution requirement was unconstitutional as to initiative and referendum petitions but dissented from the majority’s conclusion that the affidavit requirement and the geographic-distribution requirement as to voter-initiated constitutional amendments were unconstitutional.
Justice Elizabeth Clement dissented from the majority’s position that the affidavit requirement violated the First Amendment, citing the same reasons as Justice Zahra: the affidavit requirement imposed minimal burdens on petition circulators, did not bar paid petition circulation altogether, did not chill or deter paid circulators from speaking, and served the important state interests of detecting and deterring fraud, as well as assisting in the discovery of invalid signatures.
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson sought Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion on the constitutionality of the law in 2019. Nessel determined several parts of the law, including the cap on valid signatures from each congressional district, to be unconstitutional.
Groups that were part of the 2019 lawsuit released statements Monday applauding the court’s decision.
“After three years of fighting this battle in court, we’re pleased that the people of Michigan and their right to enact policy at the ballot box won’t be hindered by these unconstitutional restrictions,” said Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Monday’s decision represents a victory for Michiganders who believe in the people’s voice dictating the direction of this state, Scott said.
“Today is a good day for everyone who values democratic participation in our state,” said Hank Mayers, of Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections. “Michiganders have a long tradition of taking ideas on how to improve our state directly to the people and PA 608 sought to significantly complicate and threaten failure for those efforts.”
Michiganders are able to initiate legislation as either a state statute or constitutional amendment. For statutes, if the petition receives enough valid signatures, then the state legislature has 40 days to adopt or reject the proposal. If legislators vote down the proposal, the measure is placed on the next general election ballot. If it is a proposed constitutional amendment that collects enough signatures, the proposal is placed directly on the next general election ballot.
READ MORE FROM MLIVE:
Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.
source: https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/01/michigan-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-made-ballot-petitions-harder.html
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.