Case: Detroit Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Michigan Republican State Committee

This case is a about alleged voter-intimidation at polling places in Detroit, Michigan during the city’s November 8, 2005, general election. On the day of the election, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Defendants from harassing voters at their polling places. The complaint alleged that during the morning voting, representatives of the Defendants presented themselves as “election challengers,” and used this veil to harass and intimidate African American voters – in violation of MCL 168.730, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973(i)(b)), The Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. § 1971(b)), and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Defendant representatives were said to have interfered by asking voters questions such as “‘Have you been convicted of a crime?’, ‘Do you have your ID?’, and ‘Are you up to date on your child support?’” The Court, with Judge Gerald Rosen presiding, heard the parties’ arguments as to the temporary restraining order, and ruled on the matter on the record at the November 8, 2005 hearing. 

The ruling on the TRO was not explicitly found through the record, nor the docket. However, in an unrelated filing by the Detroit Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, to the Michigan Supreme Court, a Brief of Amici Curiae was filed requesting an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of Sec. 523 of 2005 PA 71, MCL 168.523. This brief seems to note that the TRO was granted. After discussing the influx of voter intimidation in 2005 throughout Michigan culminating in the NAACP filing a TRO against the Republican National Committee and the Michigan Republican State Committee (as in this case), the brief states: 

In granting the injunction, U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen ruled that, “[c]hallengers are not to have any direct contact with voters. All challengers are to go through election inspectors. In addition, it is very clear, again taking the statute as a whole, that the kinds of questions [of voters by Republican challengers] that are alleged by the [NAACP]... would be a violation of the statute. So, for that reason, I am going to grant in part the [NAACP's] Motion for Injunctive Relief.”

Following the issuance of the TRO on November 8, 2005, the Court here filed an order for Plaintiffs to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed within 10 days, on November 23. The Order stated that the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive relief on November 8, 2005, and thus it appears the ruling resolved the claim of relief sought in the Complaint. On December 21, the court entered an Order of Dismissal because Plaintiffs failed to respond. 

This case is closed.