Filed Date: Aug. 9, 2020
Closed Date: Nov. 10, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
On August 9, 2020, one individual plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against the Michigan Secretary of State and the Wayne County Clerk, seeking compensatory, declaratory and injunctive relief from the provisions of Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which allegedly violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment right to engage in “anonymous” political speech (“Count 1”). Specifically, the plaintiff desired to distribute anonymous political literature that would criticize the Wayne County Prosecutor, Wayne County Clerk, and Wayne County Circuit Court Chief Judge for their alleged improper actions that resulted in the Wayne County Prosecutor’s name appearing on the August 4, 2020 primary election ballot.
Under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, it is a crime for an individual to print and distribute anonymous campaign literature. The plaintiff claimed that the Michigan Secretary of State and the Wayne County Clerk had a statutory duty to enforce the provisions of Michigan Campaign Finance Act, and neither had indicated that they would not enforce these provisions.
The plaintiff also filed a claim against Michigan Secretary of State, seeking compensatory, declaratory and injunctive relief from the Michigan Secretary of State’s alleged unlawful actions of mailing out unsolicited absentee voter application to the plaintiff (“Count II”). The plaintiff claimed that neither the state constitution nor any provision of Michigan Election Law permitted the Michigan Secretary of State the authority to mail an unsolicited absentee voter application to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed he had a statutory right to request an absentee ballot application from his local city clerk. Therefore, the plaintiff alleged that the Michigan Secretary of State’s actions denied him his procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. On August 14, 2020, the District Court dismissed without prejudice Count I of the plaintiff’s complaint with the understanding that Count I of plaintiff’s complaint would be refiled as part of an amended complaint in the matter of Anders v Benson, et.al., 20-cv-11991.
On August 17, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended four-count complaint. The plaintiff, claimed that the Michigan Secretary of State, violated his substantive and procedural due process rights by mailing him an unsolicited absentee ballot application (“Count I”). The plaintiff also claimed that the Wayne County Clerk violated his procedural due process rights by not keeping the Clerk’s Office open all day for the August 4, 2020 primary election (“Count II”). In addition, the plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus against the Wayne County Clerk to keep the clerk’s office open for the November 3, 2020, general election (“Count III”), and to refrain from mailing unsolicited absentee voter applications for the November 3 election (“Count IV”). On August 20, 2020, the District Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be stayed or dismissed without prejudice pursuant to issues of comity, federalism, and abstention. The District Court also ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III and IV and dismiss them without prejudice.
On September 14, 2020, the District Court dismissed plaintiff’s due process claim against the Michigan Secretary of State (Count I) and plaintiff’s state law claims (Counts III and IV) without prejudice. The District Court decided to proceed with plaintiff’s procedural due process claim (Count II). On October 6, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion for dismissal for the remaining procedural due process claim (Count II). On November 9, 2020, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for dismissal. The District Court reasoned that the plaintiff had no legally cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause in having the clerk’s office open on election day.
Summary Authors
Devaki Patel (6/9/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17427937/parties/davis-v-benson/
Cleland, Robert Hardy (Michigan)
Paterson, Andrew A. (Michigan)
Anderson-Davis, Janet (Michigan)
Grill, Erik A. (Michigan)
Meingast, Heather S. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17427937/davis-v-benson/
Last updated Aug. 14, 2025, 9:04 p.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 9, 2020
Closing Date: Nov. 10, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A private political activist.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Cathy M. Garrett (Wayne), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: