Michigan’s popular election administration amendments face a court challenge.
Eleven Republican state legislators have filed a lawsuit in Michigan, seeking to invalidate two amendments to the state constitution related to election procedures in federal elections. They argue that these amendments were passed without the approval of the legislature, violating their rights as specified in the U.S. Constitution.
The legislators claim that the petition-ballot initiative process outlined in the Michigan Constitution undermines their legislative powers granted by the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that the “Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
Related Stories
- Election Reform Ballot Proposal Sparks Opposition in Michigan – 10/25/2022
- Michigan Secretary of State Loses Round in Fight Over Dead People on Voter Rolls – 8/26/2022
The amendments in question were initiated through citizen petitions in 2018 and 2022. Despite concerns from Republicans about the vague wording and potential impact on election integrity, both proposals received over 60 percent of the popular vote and were passed.
In 2022, the Board of State Canvassers initially blocked one of the proposals from appearing on the ballot due to concerns about misleading language. However, the Michigan Supreme Court later ruled that it should be included.
The amendments grant various rights to voters, including automatic registration, shorter residency requirements, election-day registration, and no-reason absentee voting. They also provide for extended office hours, straight-party voting, secure drop-boxes, and pre-paid postage for absentee ballots.
The legislators argue that these amendments infringe upon their constitutional authority to regulate federal elections. They believe that the exclusive duty of the legislature should not be circumvented or usurped.
The plaintiffs are concerned about the potential consequences of disregarding the rule of law and the long-term impact on America’s constitutional republic. They emphasize the need to protect the Constitution and prevent future encroachments on legislative powers.
The lawsuit names Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and the director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections as defendants. The plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the amendments and any taxpayer funding related to them.
Constitutional lawyers representing the plaintiffs argue that the belated actions of the legislature to pass similar laws do not rectify the violation that occurred. They believe that the invalid amendments must be removed from the Michigan Constitution to uphold the rule of law.
A favorable ruling in this case could have broader implications, potentially inspiring similar challenges in other states and prompting a reevaluation of election practices governed by secretaries of state and election administrators without legislative approval.
Ultimately, the laws enacted by the state legislature are subject to the governor’s veto and must comply with federal legislation.
What concerns were raised by the PAA related to the clarity and potential impact of the amendment?
Sals from appearing on the ballot, citing concerns over the clarity and potential impact of the amendment. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned the decision, stating that the board did not have the authority to prevent the proposal from proceeding.
The first amendment in question, passed in 2018, establishes automatic voter registration when applying for a driver’s license or state identification card. It also allows for same-day voter registration and no-excuse absentee voting. The second amendment, passed in 2022, requires audits of election results and strengthens the penalties for election-related crimes.
The Republican legislators argue that these amendments were essentially legislating from the ballot box, bypassing the traditional legislative process. They claim that this undermines the balance of power and infringes on their authority as elected representatives. They argue that the U.S. Constitution gives the power to regulate elections to the state legislature, not to the citizens through petition initiatives.
The lawsuit argues that the amendments should be invalidated because they were not passed by the legislature itself. The legislators contend that the citizen-initiated petition process contradicts the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly grants this power to the state legislature. They argue that the citizens’ right to petition does not supersede the authority of the legislature in matters of election regulation.
Opponents of the lawsuit argue that the citizen petition process is an essential tool for direct democracy, allowing citizens to have a say in shaping their government. They claim that the amendments were passed through a legitimate and democratic process, with the support of a majority of voters. They argue that invalidating the amendments would undermine the will of the people and hinder efforts to improve election procedures and expand access to voting.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the future of citizen-initiated petitions and the power of the state legislature in shaping election procedures. If the lawsuit is successful, it could limit the ability of citizens to directly influence election laws and regulations through the petition process. On the other hand, if the lawsuit is dismissed, it could affirm the authority of citizens to initiate changes to the constitution through popular vote.
The case highlights the ongoing debate over the role of citizens and the state legislature in shaping election procedures. It raises important questions about the balance of power and the extent to which citizens can directly participate in the democratic process. Ultimately, the courts will have to determine whether the citizen-initiated amendments in Michigan are in violation of the U.S. Constitution and whether they should be invalidated.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
