By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
The U.S. Supreme Court should not grant emergency relief to Americans for Citizen Voting, the Department of Attorney General argued in a filing to the highest court on Wednesday.
In a filing signed by Attorney General Dana Nessel, the agency said Americans for Citizen Voting filed an emergency appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court despite the Michigan Supreme Court not yet making any decision in the case.
Indeed, the Michigan Supreme Court has yet to issue any orders. On Wednesday, the docket for the state case (MSC Docket No. 170595) indicated the chief justice accepted amicus briefs issued by interested parties, but no decision has been issued via ruling or order.
“This is a highly unusual application. Applicants filed their original complaint for mandamus with the Michigan Supreme Court only four days before this application, and there has been no hearing, order or opinion issued by the state court,” the filing says. “The applicants here are asking this court to be the first court to review their claims, and the application provides limited and sparse citation to any law.”
Americans for Citizen Voting – Michigan is attempting to revive its constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to vote after the Board of State Canvassers failed to certify it for the ballot.
The state’s response argues the process by which petitions are certified for ballot access “is entirely a state-created right, not a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
“Federal courts have previously recognized that such processes are not entitled to the same protection as the right to vote,” the response says. “To the contrary, many courts have held that private citizens lack a constitutional right to propose referenda or initiatives for any ballot, federal or state.”
Additionally, the state argues that the ballot group is seeking extraordinary relief without justification. The filing says the claims center around the number of signatures organizers say were collected without acknowledging the number found invalid by the Bureau of Elections.
Further, the filing argues that the petition group is unlikely to prevail on its due process and equal protection claims.
The group turned in more than 700,000 signatures and needed 446,198. Through the sampling process, where 1,000 signatures are reviewed, the Bureau of Elections found the proposal was three signatures short of the 629 needed to certify. Organizers came back with affidavits signed by individuals whose signatures had been rejected, saying they did in fact sign the petition. The lawsuit argues the affidavits are sufficient to put the proposal over the required number of signatures.
Americans for Citizen Voting focuses on affidavits that were not accepted by the Board of State Canvassers and argues those sworn statements, if the canvassers had considered them, would prove they collected enough signatures.
The state argued that leaves many thousands of signatures without review.
“ACVM asks the court, in the name of equal protection and due process, to review and reverse only nine specific determinations that went against them and reverse those, but leave in place without review all determinations adjudicated in their favor,” the filing says. “But cherry-picking only nine determinations to reverse would distort the result. Simply put, ACVM wants to keep all its gains while disputing only its losses, but such a one-sided analysis is inconsistent with the principles of due process and equal Protection ACVM seeks to invoke.”
The U.S. Supreme Court should not put its “thumb on the scale,” in this case, Nessel argues.
“Particularly in the case of a state administrative proceeding where a state court can provide more fulsome and comprehensive review,” the filing says. “These factors plainly weigh in favor denying relief.”
Gongwer News Service
The U.S. Supreme Court should not grant emergency relief to Americans for Citizen Voting, the Department of Attorney General argued in a filing to the highest court on Wednesday.
In a filing signed by Attorney General Dana Nessel, the agency said Americans for Citizen Voting filed an emergency appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court despite the Michigan Supreme Court not yet making any decision in the case.
Indeed, the Michigan Supreme Court has yet to issue any orders. On Wednesday, the docket for the state case (MSC Docket No. 170595) indicated the chief justice accepted amicus briefs issued by interested parties, but no decision has been issued via ruling or order.
“This is a highly unusual application. Applicants filed their original complaint for mandamus with the Michigan Supreme Court only four days before this application, and there has been no hearing, order or opinion issued by the state court,” the filing says. “The applicants here are asking this court to be the first court to review their claims, and the application provides limited and sparse citation to any law.”
Americans for Citizen Voting – Michigan is attempting to revive its constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship to vote after the Board of State Canvassers failed to certify it for the ballot.
The state’s response argues the process by which petitions are certified for ballot access “is entirely a state-created right, not a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
“Federal courts have previously recognized that such processes are not entitled to the same protection as the right to vote,” the response says. “To the contrary, many courts have held that private citizens lack a constitutional right to propose referenda or initiatives for any ballot, federal or state.”
Additionally, the state argues that the ballot group is seeking extraordinary relief without justification. The filing says the claims center around the number of signatures organizers say were collected without acknowledging the number found invalid by the Bureau of Elections.
Further, the filing argues that the petition group is unlikely to prevail on its due process and equal protection claims.
The group turned in more than 700,000 signatures and needed 446,198. Through the sampling process, where 1,000 signatures are reviewed, the Bureau of Elections found the proposal was three signatures short of the 629 needed to certify. Organizers came back with affidavits signed by individuals whose signatures had been rejected, saying they did in fact sign the petition. The lawsuit argues the affidavits are sufficient to put the proposal over the required number of signatures.
Americans for Citizen Voting focuses on affidavits that were not accepted by the Board of State Canvassers and argues those sworn statements, if the canvassers had considered them, would prove they collected enough signatures.
The state argued that leaves many thousands of signatures without review.
“ACVM asks the court, in the name of equal protection and due process, to review and reverse only nine specific determinations that went against them and reverse those, but leave in place without review all determinations adjudicated in their favor,” the filing says. “But cherry-picking only nine determinations to reverse would distort the result. Simply put, ACVM wants to keep all its gains while disputing only its losses, but such a one-sided analysis is inconsistent with the principles of due process and equal Protection ACVM seeks to invoke.”
The U.S. Supreme Court should not put its “thumb on the scale,” in this case, Nessel argues.
“Particularly in the case of a state administrative proceeding where a state court can provide more fulsome and comprehensive review,” the filing says. “These factors plainly weigh in favor denying relief.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
