By David Eggert
Associated Press
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A group organizing a ballot drive to add LGBT anti-discrimination protections to Michigan’s civil rights law sued the state Tuesday, saying coronavirus restrictions made it impossible to collect the 340,000 voter signatures needed.
Fair and Equal Michigan and two Democratic legislators filed the lawsuit in the state Court of Claims. It seeks an injunction reducing the signature requirement to roughly 127,000 signatures.
The suit also challenges deadlines by which signatures must be submitted and asks that signatures that already have been collected be able to count in future elections.
If the ballot committee is successful, the initiated bill would go to lawmakers and, because the Republican-led Legislature would likely not act, to a public vote in November.
The proposal would update the law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations. Religion-based discrimination, which already is barred, would be defined to include an individual’s “religious beliefs.”
- Posted May 27, 2020
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
LGBT rights ballot drive sues to cut signature requirement
headlines Detroit
- Lawsuits between prediction markets and states now spans nearly half of U.S.
- Supreme Court reform gathers momentum
- Narrow Mail-in Voting Ruling by Supreme Court Doesn’t Address Constitutionality of Trump’s Executive Order
- ABA joins NASS and to mobilize lawyers as poll workers for midterm elections
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Legal writers can benefit from a Zen writing approach and some Hemingway—and so can their readers
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Why the next competitive advantage in the AI era is partnership, not just technology
- Things I wish my spouse had told me before they died
- Troutman Pepper Locke associate files discrimination lawsuit against firm
- Jay-Z’s extortion suit against lawyer in withdrawn rape case faces skepticism from judge




