Filed Date: Aug. 19, 2020
Closed Date: Sept. 9, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the constitutionality of Michigan’s ballot-access requirements for independent candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives during the November 2020 election. On August 19, 2020, an independent candidate for Michigan's 13th congressional district filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan. He sued the Governor, Secretary of State and Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleged Michigan’s ballot access laws, which require independent candidates to file a qualifying petition containing 3,000 signatures by July 16, 2020 to have their names on the ballot, were unconstitutionally burdensome under the First and Fourteenth Amendments when combined with Michigan’s stay at home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also alleged party candidates were allowed to obtain signatures electronically, obtain fewer signatures, and were given an extension, and that such differential treatment was a violation of his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, a temporary restraining order to prevent the state from enforcing the signature requirement or qualifying petition deadline against him. The case was assigned to Judge Robert H. Cleland.
On August 19, 2020, the plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction. On August 21, 2020, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion in part by denying the temporary restraining order. 2020 WL 4923694. The Court found there would not be immediate and irreparable injury without the order, and ordered a hearing on the preliminary injunction (which was later cancelled).
On September 2, 2020, the state filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. 485 F. Supp. 3d 876. The Court denied the motion for two reasons. First, under the doctrine of laches, the plaintiff had waited over a month after the registration deadline to file this suit and assert his rights. Id. at 881. Second, the Court denied the preliminary injunction on the merits. Id. at 885. It applied the Anderson-Burdick balancing framework and found the plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on his claim. First, the Court found the signature requirement did not impose a severe burden on the plaintiffs, but rather only an intermediate burden, like in Kishore. Id. at 883. The state did not impose the entire burden on the plaintiff, rather the plaintiff did not meet the requirement because he was not diligent in pursuing signatures. The Court found he could have collected signatures during the 45 days from the expiration of the stay at home order June 1, 2020 and the deadline on July 16, 2020. Id. The Court also found the state had interests in administering elections that outweighed the intermediate burden on the plaintiff. Moreover, the Court rejected the idea that the state could not impose different requirements between independent and major party candidates. Id. at 884.
On September 9, 2020 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. The date of the election has passed and there have been no further filings; the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Kathryn Hurley (4/1/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17460711/parties/eason-v-whitmer/
Cleland, Robert Hardy (Michigan)
Patti, Anthony P. (Michigan)
Eason, Darryl W. (Michigan)
Grill, Erik A. (Michigan)
Cleland, Robert Hardy (Michigan)
Patti, Anthony P. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17460711/eason-v-whitmer/
Last updated March 29, 2024, 3:09 a.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 19, 2020
Closing Date: Sept. 9, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Independent candidate for United States House of Representatives in Michigan's 13th congressional district
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: