Sign in or Register
Add Case
    • Explore
      arrow_drop_down
      • Cash Courts vs. Constitutional Courts
      • The Constitution
    • Resources
    • Browse Cases
    • Support
      arrow_drop_down
      • Donate
      • Partner
      • Thank You
    • Contact Us
    Add Case

    Michigan: Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. Benson

    • Date
      June 2, 2020
    • City/County
      Grand Rapids
    • Type of Case
      Voter Fraud, Voter Integrity Whether a policy by the secretary of state of Michigan extending the deadline to receive absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day until 14 days after Election Day violates federal law and the U.S Constitution.
    • Case Details
    • New Page 0
    • prev
    • next
    • Get directions
    • Leave a review
    • Bookmark
    • Share
    • Report
    • prev
    • next
    Title

    Michigan: Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. Benson

    Date
    June 2, 2020
    State or Country
    Michigan
    County/City:
    Grand Rapids
    The Court the Case was filed in

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION / Michigan Court of Appeals

    Type of Case
    Voter Fraud, Voter Integrity Whether a policy by the secretary of state of Michigan extending the deadline to receive absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day until 14 days after Election Day violates federal law and the U.S Constitution.
    Case Number

    20-000108-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl.) 1:20-cv-00948 (W.D. Mich.) 354993 (Mich. App.)

    Judges

    Honorable Paul L. Maloney

    Before: CAMERON, P.J., and BOONSTRA, and GADOLA, JJ.
    CAMERON, P.J

    Plaintiff

    MICHIGAN ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED
    AMERICANS, DETROIT/DOWNRIVER
    CHAPTER OF THE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH
    INSTITUTE, CHARLES ROBINSON,
    GERARD MCMURRAN, JIM PEDERSEN,

    Defendant

    JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity
    as the Michigan Secretary of State, and DANA
    NESSEL, in her official capacity as the
    Michigan Attorney General,

    Intervener

    SENATE and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
    Intervening Defendants-Appellants,
    and
    REPUBLIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE and
    MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY,
    Proposed Intervening Defendants.

    Plaintiff Attorney

    TODD A. DAWSON
    BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
    Key Tower, 127 Public
    Square, Suite 2000
    Cleveland, OH 44114
    Phone: (216) 621-0200
    Fax: (216) 696-0740
    tdawson@bakerlaw.com
    Attorney for Plaintiffs

    DAVID B. RIVKIN*
    ANDREW M. GROSSMAN*
    RICHARD B. RAILE*
    BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
    1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
    Suite 1100
    Washington, D.C. 20036

    R. Stanton Jones*
    Elisabeth S. Theodore*
    Daniel F. Jacobson*
    Kolya D. Glick*
    Samuel F. Callahan*
    Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
    601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
    Washington, DC 20001
    (202) 942-5000
    stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com
    Theresa J. Lee*
    Dale E. Ho*
    American Civil Liberties Union
    125 Broad Street
    New York, NY 10004
    (212) 549-2500
    tlee@aclu.org
    Mark Brewer (P35661)
    Goodman Acker, P.C.
    17000 W. Ten Mile Road
    Southfield, MI 48075
    (248) 483-5000
    mbrewer@goodmanacker.com
    Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842)
    Sharon Dolente (P67771)
    American Civil Liberties Union
    Fund of Michigan
    2966 Woodward Avenue
    Detroit, MI 48201
    (313) 578-6824
    dkorobkin@aclumich.org
    sdolente@aclumich.org
    * Pro hac vice motions forthcoming

    Comments

    NATURE OF THE CASE
    1. In 2018, a supermajority of Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment
    to enshrine the right to vote absentee in the Michigan Constitution. In elections held since, absentee
    2
    voting has surged, reflecting the electorate’s embrace of the Constitution’s new guarantee that
    voters be permitted to exercise their most fundamental of rights in this way.
    2. Even in ordinary times, it would be reasonable to expect the shift toward absentee
    voting to continue in Michigan. But these are not ordinary times. Over the past few months, life in
    the United States has changed rapidly as the result of a highly infectious, novel coronavirus, which
    as of the date of this filing, has infected over 1.85 million and killed over 107,000 people across
    the country. The pandemic has hit Michigan particularly hard, infecting Michiganders from Detroit
    to the Upper Peninsula. To date, there have been over 57,500 confirmed cases of coronavirus in
    Michigan, and over 5,500 deaths from the respiratory illness it causes, COVID-19.
    3. Public health officials warn that the virus will be with us for a significant period of
    time—into November, certainly, when there is fear that a second, more devastating wave is likely
    to coincide with both flu season and the general election, and likely beyond, into at least 2021. As
    a result, more and more voters are understandably turning to absentee voting to safely exercise
    their right to the franchise.
    4. On March 10, 2020—the same day that Michigan held its 2020 Presidential
    Primary, in which nearly a million Michiganders requested an absentee ballot—Governor Whitmer
    declared a state of emergency as a result of the rapid advancement of the virus. From March 23
    until June 1, the State was under at least partial lockdown in an attempt to stem the virus’s spread,
    and some restrictions in Michigan continue. The novel coronavirus has thus upended normal life
    in Michigan, and, if the April primary election in Wisconsin is any indication, it threatens to
    disenfranchise many eligible voters in the upcoming August primary election and November
    general election, absent relief from this Court.

    5. At issue in this case are three restrictions that threaten to deny Michiganders their
    newly enshrined right to vote absentee, as well as their right to vote, their right to due process,
    their right to free speech and association, and their rights under the federal Voting Rights Act. The
    current public health crisis only serves to exacerbate the constitutional infirmities with these
    provisions, which have become increasingly undeniable as more and more Michiganders exercise
    their right to absentee vote.
    6. First, Michigan law rejects any and all absentee ballots that are not delivered to
    election officials by 8 p.m. on Election Day, MCL 168.764a (“ballot receipt deadline”). Even
    before the current public health crisis, the Secretary acknowledged that the ballot receipt deadline
    should be extended because voters were being disenfranchised as a result of “more ballots
    transmitted through the mail” since the advent of no-excuse voting, but the pandemic has made
    things significantly worse. The U.S. Postal Service has reduced mail service in some parts of
    Michigan—including Detroit and other highly-populated areas—due to pandemic-related staffing
    shortages, with no end in sight; some residents have reported waiting not days, but weeks, for their
    mail. Once absentee voters timely submit their ballot in the mail, the Postal Service has sole control
    over when it arrives, and the agency’s delivery delays stemming from its current operational and
    budgetary difficulties will disenfranchise voters through no fault of their own. Consistent with the
    emergency relief adopted by a Wisconsin federal court—and approved by the U.S. Supreme
    Court—election officials should be required to count ballots postmarked by Election Day and
    received for up to 14 days after the election to allow for the delivery of delayed absentee ballots.
    See Republican Nat’l Comm v Democratic Nat’l Comm, __ US __, 140 S Ct 1205, __ L Ed __, at
    1208 (2020).

    7. Second, Michigan law requires voters who return their absentee ballots by mail to
    provide their own postage. MCL 168.764a(a) (the “postage requirement”). This postage
    requirement imposes an unnecessary monetary cost to voting at a time when many Michiganders
    are suffering from the devastating economic impact of the novel coronavirus. Since March 15,
    unemployment has grown to a staggering 1.7 million or 22 percent in Michigan, one of the highest
    unemployment rates in the nation. Yet, the postage requirement forces Michigan voters to either
    venture out and subject themselves to health risks in search of a stamp or pay significantly more
    to order a sheet of stamps online—both of which add significant cost and delay to the voting
    process, especially for those who rely on public transportation.
    8. Third, while the receipt deadline and postage requirement add costs to absentee
    voting, Michigan law erects a third obstacle—this one to returning a ballot. Michigan law strictly
    limits who can deliver a voter’s sealed absentee ballot to their local clerk, allowing only election
    and postal workers and members of a voter’s household or immediate family to handle or return
    an absentee ballot on a voter’s behalf. See MCL 168.932(f); see also id. 168.764a. Any other
    person who offers to assist a voter, or who provides such assistance, is guilty of a felony, id.
    168.932(f), punishable by up to four years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, id. 750.503
    (collectively, “voter assistance ban”).
    9. The voter assistance ban, which together with the ballot receipt deadline and
    postage requirement constitutes the “challenged provisions,” restricts the ability of organizations
    like the Alliance for Retired Americans (the “Alliance”) and the Downriver/Detroit Chapter of the
    A. Philip Randolph Institute (“APRI”) to engage their core constituencies and to mobilize voters
    by assisting voters in making the transition, many for the first time in the upcoming election, to
    absentee voting. The ban also makesit harder for voters who unexpectedly find themselves without
    a way to return an absentee ballot on Election Day.
    10. There is currently no end in sight to the daily upheaval caused by the novel
    coronavirus and efforts to curtail its spread. The disease will continue to threaten American lives
    for a long time. Recognizing the unique and serious threats to public health, the Secretary,
    Governor Whitmer, and other Michigan officials—in line with CDC guidance—have encouraged
    absentee voting in Michigan’s upcoming August primary and November general elections, in part
    because, as the Secretary explained, absentee voting eliminates the possibility of coronavirus
    transmission while voting.
    11. The challenged provisions burden Michiganders’ self-executing constitutional right
    to vote absentee. In November 2018, Michigan voters overwhelmingly expressed an unequivocal
    desire to expand voting access for all citizens when they passed Proposal 3 by a supermajority.
    Proposal 3 enshrined in the State Constitution new self-executing voting rights, including the right
    to no-excuse absentee voting during the 40 days before an election and the right to choose whether
    to apply for, receive, and submit an absentee ballot in person or by mail. Const 1963, art 2, §
    4(1)(g).
    12. To protect the right to vote absentee, to vote, to due process, and to free speech and
    association, as well as voters’ rights under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, in the midst of
    the current pandemic, Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court issue an Order requiring
    Defendants to: (1) enjoin the ballot receipt deadline and extend the deadline for when ballots must
    be received to 14 days after Election Day; (2) enjoin the postage requirement and provide pre-paid
    postage for all absentee ballot envelopes; and (3) enjoin the voter assistance ban and permit third
    parties to assist voters in submitting their sealed absentee ballots. With the primary and general
    elections fast approaching, the time to act is now, to prevent widespread disenfranchisement and
    effectuate the will of the voters so that all will have a safe and meaningful opportunity to participate
    in Michigan’s elections.

    Social Networks
    • Other
    • Other
    • Other
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Website
    • Website
    Document Links 1 (Scribd et. al)

    https://courts.michigan.gov/opinions_orders/case_search/Pages/default.aspx?SearchType=1&CaseNumber=353654&CourtType_CaseNumber=2

    Document Link 2

    https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052259/https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/johnson-v-benson/

    Document Link 3

    https://web.archive.org/web/20201116052356/https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/state-ct-complaint.pdf

    mood_bad
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment

    Leave a Reply · Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You May Also Be Interested In

    Michigan, Sidney Powell: TIMOTHY KING et al v. Gov GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al

    • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
    • 2:20-cv-13134-LVP - RSW
    • COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    • Judge Linda V. Parker Judge R. Steven Whalen

    Michigan: Constantino et al v. City of Detroit et al

    • State of Michigan Third Judicial Circuit Court for the County of Wayne
    • 20-014780-AW
    • Voter Fraud, Voter Integrity Plaintiffs alleged election fraud, seeking to prevent the election results of Detroit and Wayne County from being certified. Judge Timothy M Kenny denied of motion for preliminary relief stating that the plaintiffs' "interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible", with plaintiffs not fully comprehending the "absent ballot tabulation process".
    • Circuit Court Judge Timothy Kenny Chief Judge Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan

    Michigan: Lena Bally v. Gov Gretchen Whitmer / Dropped

    • United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
    • 1:20-cv-01088
    • Voter Fraud, Voter Integrity, Nature of Suit 441 Civil Rights - Voting Cause 42:1983 Other Civil Rights / Dropped / Plaintiffs seek to exclude all votes from Wayne, Washtenaw and Ingham Counties from Michigan's certified vote count.
    • Judge: Janet T Neff Referred: Phillip J Green
    Donate with Paypal
    Go Fund Me
    Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Blogger

    Judicial Pedia follows The Constitution of the United States of America which  is the Supreme Law of the United States.    The First Amendment:     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Judicial Pedia gives every American a place to exercise The First Amendment.But, when you post and submit a case you agree to the following:   When this form is submitted.The party giving the written statement declares the facts / information stated are true and confirms this to the best of their knowledge. The party confirms that the information here is both accurate and relevant information has not been omitted.

    Liberty Bell

    The Liberty Bell reads:

    "Proclaim Liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." from Leviticus 25:10.

    Let us continue to "RING" the BELL for Justice.

    • Explore
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us

    © Judicial Pedia. All rights reserved.

    person
    Sign in
    personDon't have an account?
    lockForgot password?
    person
    Create an account

    IMPORTANT NOTICE: After registering your account, please check your email and click on the confirmation, then return to the website and log back in with the username and password you received in your email.

    PRIVACY POLICY: Your personal data will be used to support your experience throughout this website, to manage access to your account, and for other purposes described in our privacy policy.

    Already Registered?

    Cart

      • Facebook
      • Twitter
      • WhatsApp
      • Telegram
      • LinkedIn
      • Tumblr
      • VKontakte
      • Mail
      • Copy link