Case: Myers v. Johnson

This case is about denying ballot access to a petition due to statutorily expired signatures.

On September 8, 2016, two signatories to a Michigan petition to legalize marijuana filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The signatories sued the Michigan Secretary of State challenging the constitutionality of a state statute establishing a “rebuttable presumption” that signatories on petitions older than 180 days are stale and void. Represented by Cannabis Counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and extraordinary relief. They also filed for a temporary restraining order to stop the defendant from printing ballots that did not include the initiative on legalizing marijuana. Plaintiffs claimed that the “rebuttable presumption” violated their rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also alleged violations to the Voting Rights Act and the Michigan Constitution. The case was assigned to Judge Linda Vivienne Parker.

Prior to June 7, 2016, Michigan Law provided that a signature was “rebuttable presumed… stale and void if the signature was made more than 180 days before the petition was filed with the Secretary of State.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.472a. However, effective June 7, 2016, the ability to rebut the presumption of staleness was removed. There was an initial petition to legalize marijuana on June 1, 2016, in which the signatories signed the petition but did so more than 180 days before the petition's filing with the Secretary of State. The Michigan Bureau of Elections determined that over 200,000 of the 354,000 signatures were collected more than 180 days before it was filed, meaning that the petition did not reach the 252,523 signatures required for it to be placed on the ballot, and the Bureau of Elections recommended denying ballot access to the petition. Signatories argued that MILegalize (the filer of the petition) was able to rebut 137,000 signatures at the time of filing, though the Bureau of Elections found that these rebuttals were insufficient.

On June 16, 2016 MILegalize filed an action in the Michigan Court of Claims against the Michigan Secretary of State, Director for the Bureau of Elections, and the Board of State Canvassers challenging the application of the Michigan Law, arguing that the statute infringed on the right to utilize the initiative process under Michigan Constitution, Article 2, Section 9, as well as the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. On August 23, 2016, the court rejected MILegalize's challenge. MILegalize appealed the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal, as did the Michigan Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs then initiated this lawsuit on September 8, 2016. The complaint is nearly identical to the previous one by MILegalize, and was filed by the same attorneys. The plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to stop MSOS from printing ballots without the petition. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion, concluding the claims were barred by res judicata because plaintiffs were in privity with MILegalize. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint seeking to add five individuals as co-plaintiffs and extended their claims to include any initiative petitions currently filed or ongoing in Michigan (including an additional fracking petition Plaintiffs claimed they signed).

On November 11, 2016, the defendant Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss. The court concluded that res judicata still barred plaintiffs' claims because they remained in privity with MILegalize--MILegalize and plaintiffs in the current lawsuit had the same interests and sought the same relief in connection with the MILegalize petition. Alternatively, the court concluded plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations contained only conclusory allegations devoid of factual content. Specifically, the court found that the law did not violate the First Amendment right to travel because after signing a ballot initiative, individuals remained free to move wherever they wish. The court also found that the 180-day window did not violate the Voting Rights Act because plaintiffs’ data failed to show this window has a "disparate impact" on African American voters, as the plaintiffs had argued. Last, the court found that the "rebuttable presumption" did not violate the Michigan Constitution, because the court was bound to follow the Michigan Court of Claim in finding the section constitutional. 

The case is now closed.