Supreme Court Declines to Hear Michigan Election Law Appeal
In a notable decision, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to entertain an appeal from 11 Republican legislators in Michigan who sought to contest contentious amendments to state election laws, which were championed by progressive organizations in 2018 and 2022.
These progressive factions reportedly capitalized on millions of dollars in ‘dark money’ to spearhead statewide referendums aimed at dismantling voter integrity laws, rendering challenges to elections increasingly arduous. This influx of funding raises eyebrows, as the opaque nature of campaign finance laws permits a convoluted flow of money. Foreign governments and affluent liberal donors can theoretically funnel contributions through various non-profits, ultimately reaching 501(c)(4) entities that engage in ballot initiatives without full transparency.
In 2022, the organization “Promote the Vote” amassed an impressive $23 million from dark money sources to repeal voter integrity measures, while its principal opposition could only muster $4.1 million.
Leading the charge against these ballot initiatives was State Sen. Jonathan Lindsey (R-Coldwater). He and his fellow challengers argued that the proposals, namely Proposal 3 of 2018 and Proposal 2 of 2022, unlawfully encroached upon the legislature’s constitutional authority to regulate federal elections.
“The court appears to believe we lack standing, but in a Constitutional Republic, it is our duty to dictate the time, place, and manner of elections. When this authority is usurped, it undeniably diminishes the will of the electorate,” Rep. Steve Carra remarked to the Gateway Pundit. Carra, a signatory to the lawsuit, further claimed, “Proposal 2 has made it significantly easier to perpetrate systemic voter fraud in Michigan.”
Carra continued, “Utilizing millions from out-of-state donors like George Soros to mislead voters has solidified their capacity for systemic voter fraud in our state.”
The legislative authority over elections is anchored in the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, articulated in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…”
In April, a district court dismissed the legislators’ lawsuit, ruling they did not possess standing, a decision upheld by the Sixth Circuit in December. The Supreme Court’s refusal to take on the case means the lower court’s rulings will remain intact, safeguarding the changes from further federal scrutiny.
Previously, the court had noted that the legislators “did not suffer a concrete and particularized injury.”
More specifically, the Sixth Circuit’s December ruling outlined several reasons for the lack of standing:
- They did not represent the entire legislature or a controlling bloc within it.
- Legislators typically lack standing to assert institutional injuries on behalf of the legislature.
- They failed to demonstrate that their votes were nullified by the amendments.
Essentially, the court established that only entire legislatures can sue, while individual legislators may only pursue legal action if they can show specific personal harm.
This judicial stance has prompted criticism, suggesting it effectively allows majorities to exploit voter fraud as long as they maintain their dominance, thus safeguarding it through legal frameworks.
The Republican legislators behind the lawsuit included:
- Sen. Jonathan Lindsey,
- Sen. Jim Runestad,
- Rep. James DeSana,
- Rep. Rachelle Smit,
- Rep. Steve Carra,
- Rep. Joseph Fox,
- Rep. Matt Maddock,
- Rep. Angela Rigas,
- Rep. Josh Schriver,
- Rep. Neil Friske,
- Rep. Brad Paquette
The statewide proposals were supported by a coalition of left-leaning organizations, including the ACLU, NAACP, and the Michigan League for Public Policy.
Proposal 3 of 2018 amended the Michigan Constitution to include measures for straight-ticket voting, same-day voter registration, and no-reason absentee ballots.
Proposal 2 of 2022 further broadened voting access, introducing nine days of early in-person voting, additional ballot drop boxes, and taxpayer-funded absentee ballot tracking and postage. Detractors of Prop 2 have voiced concerns regarding the security of drop boxes and noted instances of absentee ballot fraud in Michigan, among other issues that the amendment codified.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who has staunchly defended these initiatives, hailed the court’s decision as a victory for Michigan residents. “This decision marks a triumph for the people of Michigan,” Benson stated. “I hope it signifies the end of an era characterized by frivolous lawsuits and assaults on our electoral process.”
Critics argue that these initiatives were marketed to the public as enhancements to voter access but effectively undermined election security and legislative oversight. “These ballot proposals did not merely expand voting. They entrenched partisan control over Michigan’s electoral framework,” remarked a Republican staffer familiar with the case. “This was a legal power grab cloaked in the rhetoric of ‘voting rights.’”
Attorney Erick Kaardal represented the Republican legislators. Despite their electoral victories, the progressive movement benefited from considerable out-of-state funding and substantial legal backing from national organizations. Critics assert that the campaign’s strategy aimed to sidestep traditional lawmakers entirely, embedding their changes directly into the state constitution, thus complicating any potential future legislative corrections.
