Filed Date: June 22, 2006
Closed Date: Sept. 27, 2007
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case was about purported voter-fraud throughout the state of Michigan in 2006. By obtaining 125,000 signatures from Black and Latino voters under false pretenses, Defendants Connerly (an out-of-state private party), the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (“MCRI”), and Gratz (executive director of MCRI) attempted to get a purported civil rights initiative on the ballot for their proposed amendment to the Michigan Constitution.
In the wake of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Grutter v. Bollinger (a decision favoring affirmative action nationally), Defendant Connerly launched the MCRI campaign with the aim to nullify the Grutter decision, through a state constitutional amendment that would in effect ban race and gender-based affirmative action, within Michigan. The language of the amendment purported to prohibit public higher education and the State “from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting[.]” Plaintiffs included a Michigan ballot question committee, a local worker’s union, the Mayor of Detroit in his personal capacity, and multiple private citizens of Michigan—they claimed the civil rights initiative was designed to eliminate affirmative action. Plaintiffs alleged that, through a “systematic campaign” of fraud, MCRI proponents relayed to black voters the “amendment was in support of affirmative action,” but it was actually designed to ban affirmative action. A Michigan Civil Rights Commission report confirmed the fraudulent conduct and, in July 2005, the Board of Canvassers for the state refused to the certify the MCRI’s proposed amendment.
Defendants then sought to obtain a writ of mandamus from the Michigan Court of Appeals declaring the Board of Canvassers had no authority to investigate the charges and directing the Board to place the proposed amendment on the ballot. On October 31, 2005, the Michigan Court of Appeals granted Defendants’ writ, remanding the case to the Board of Canvassers with directions to approve the petition and place the amendment it on the ballot. It also ordered the preparation of a ballot summary for the amendment. The summary clarified for the first time that the proposed amendment would effectively ban “affirmative action” as opposed to “discrimination” or “preferential treatment.” Operation King’s Dream filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court that was denied, in March 2006—because the Court was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed —and then a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied in July of 2006, and was not ruled on prior to the complaint in this action.
Plaintiffs filed the claim in this case, notwithstanding their motion for reconsideration, on June 22, 2006, because the ballot had to be finalized by September 1, 2006. The action alleged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973), which prohibits any standards, procedures, or practices having the purpose or effect of abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. They also made claims against defendants who were charged with administering the 2006 general election and preparation of the ballot as well as those who were charged with the duty of determining candidates and propositions that qualify for the ballot. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were forced to place the MCRI amendment on the ballot by the Court of Appeals even though they declared the State should investigate the conduct of MCRI in obtaining signatures.
Defendants Land (Secretary of State), Thomas (Director of Elections for Michigan), DeGrow, O’Connor and Bankes (members of the Board of Canvassers) filed a motion to dismiss on July 11, 2006. The motion alleged that the dispute involved the initiative petition process authorized by the State Constitution and statutes, and that this project was not within the scope of the Voting Rights Act. They also argued that the Act only protects against actions taken by state actors, and not private citizens, which the petition circulators were.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, on July 17, 2006, asking the Court to enjoin the state election officials from placing the amendment on the ballot because of the fraud. On August 3, 2006, Defendants Connerly, Gratz, and MCRI moved for a judgment on the pleadings.
In multiple opinions, released August 29, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Land, Thomas, DeGrow, O’Connor and Bankes. As to the judgment on the pleadings, it found “MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud by telling voters that they were signing a petition supporting affirmative action. However, the MCRI appears to have targeted all Michigan voters for deception without regard to race.” Thus, because “the Voting Rights Act is not a general anti-voter fraud statute, but rather prohibits practices which result in unequal access to the political process because of race, the Court must conclude that the defendants’ conduct, though unprincipled, did not violate the Act.” 2006 WL 2514115.
The Court noted the Defendants’ concern that finding “MCRI defrauded Michigan voters, would be an unwarranted exercise of ‘judicial activism’” but said it was unfounded. It noted the Voting Rights Act encouraged an active judicial role in reviewing the state electoral process for discrimination. The Court stated the citizens of Michigan should be concerned about the fraud, the indifference to the fraud by the States agencies, and that the amendment “will be stained by well-documented acts of fraud and deception that the defendants . . . have not credibly denied,” if it passes. It noted “the record shows that the state has demonstrated an almost complete institutional indifference to the credible allegations of voter fraud raised by Plaintiffs.” Particularly, the Court was of the view that, “had [state institutions] taken the allegations of voter fraud seriously, then it is quite possible that this case would not have come to federal court” However, the Court denied the preliminary injunction, and granted the motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings.
In its dismissal, the Court found Plaintiffs’ evidence insufficient to establish a Section 2 violation, because; 1) “even if all of the disputed Black votes were stricken from the petition, there would still be an adequate number of votes to require certification of the petition under state law[;]” 2) there was “no evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs’ theory that but for the support of minority voters, a large number of white voters would not have signed the petition[;]” and, 3) evidence in the record explicitly “showed that the MCRI sought to deceive and in fact deceived both minority and non-minority voters in order to obtain their signatures.”
In explaining its decision, the Court noted “the Voting Rights Act is not a general anti-fraud statute. The Act requires a finding of unequal access, which in this case required Plaintiffs to show that minority voters could not participate in the electoral process on the same terms and to the same extent as non-minority voters.” The evidence showed minority and non-minority voters participated in the initiative petition process on the same terms, and though the terms were fraudulent, they do not establish a Section 2 violation.
On August 31, 2006, Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their preliminary injunction motion and the dismissal of their Voting Rights Act claim to the United States Court of Appeals in the Sixth Circuit. On September 15, 2006, the MCRI Defendants cross-appealed the admission into evidence of a state-issued report which was critical of the MCRI's methods for obtaining signatures in support of Proposal 2. The appeals were argued on July 25, 2007, and they were decided and filed an August 28, 2007. After noting the Plaintiffs substantively only sought to enjoin Proposal 2's placement on Michigan's November 2006 general election ballot, the Appeals Court found the request for injunctive relief was moot, as the election had already passed. 501 F.3d 584.
This case is closed.
Summary Authors
(12/27/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4816568/parties/operation-kings-dream-v-connerly/
Driver, Shanta (Michigan)
McPhail, Sharon M. (Michigan)
Fett, James K. (Michigan)
Meingast, Heather S. (Michigan)
Granholm, Jennifer M. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4816568/operation-kings-dream-v-connerly/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 10:21 p.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 22, 2006
Closing Date: Sept. 27, 2007
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Non-profit organization, Black voters, Labor Union
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Political Donor and Head of Campaign for the Ballot Initiative for MCRI, Private Entity/Person
Vice President of MCRI, Private Entity/Person
Ballot Question/Initiative Committe, Non-profit or advocacy
Secretary of State of Michigan, State
Members of the State Board of Canvassers, State
Director of Elections for the State of Michigan, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $ 511.55 against plaintiffs.
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
Voting: