Michigan legislators fight citizen-led election laws at Sixth Circuit

(CN) ­­­— A group of Michigan state lawmakers asked a panel of three Sixth Circuit judges on Wednesday to renew their challenge to a pair of citizen-led ballot initiatives that changed election laws.

The pair of constitutional amendments, passed in 2018 and 2022, changed election laws by ensuring a right to a secret ballot, ensuring ballot access for overseas and military voters, adding straight-ticket voting and making it easier for citizens to vote. The 2018 amendment passed with 67% of the vote and the 2022 amendment got 60%.

Minneapolis attorney Erick Kaardal represented the Michigan lawmakers during roughly 30-minute oral arguments. He argued that the amendments usurped the authority of the Legislature.

“The consequence of the lower court decision is that the merits of an election clause legislator usurpation claim has not been adjudicated,” Kaardal said, referring to U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering’s order dismissing the lawmakers’ claims for lack of standing.

While Beckering, a Joe Biden appointee, found that the lawmakers failed to demonstrate an injury, the plaintiffs claim the ballot measures stepped on their power because they affect the time, place and manner of federal elections.

U.S. Circuit Judge John Bush, a Donald Trump appointee, asked Kaardal about the standing issue.

“Why isn’t your client a political loser here, because are you alleging any law that’s actually been passed by the state Legislature that would contravene any of these initiatives that you are challenging?” Bush asked.

“No, it’s more in the nature of a legislative usurpation claim,” Kaardal responded.

In their brief, the lawmakers argued: “The 2018, 2022 and future amendments regulating federal elections are a complete disenfranchisement, nullification or withdrawal of the legislators’ voting opportunities.”

Heather Meingast, Michigan’s assistant attorney general, argued on behalf of the state and urged the panel to affirm the finding that the lawmakers lack standing because they failed to show personal injury.

“What is the injury that they are alleging?” she said. “Their injury is that have lost or suffered a diminution or loss of voting power, with respect to, you know, election legislation — and that is not a personal injury.”

Bush wondered if the lawmakers would have standing if they had tried to pass a law before filing suit.

“What if they had simply alleged in their complaint that a majority of Legislature would pass this law that would contradict the initiative?” he asked Meingast. “Wouldn’t that be enough to survive standing, at least at the motion to dismiss stage?”

Meingast said it would depend on how strong the allegations were, but in this case, it would not be considered an imminent enough injury.

The other two judges on the panel were Donald Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, and George W. Bush appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton. The panel did not give a timetable for its ruling.