Posted on 07/03/2024 6:27:46 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
From Michigan Fair Elections
Lawmakers claim standing to sue state government for infringing on their constitutional rights when it used ballot initiatives to change election laws.
July 2, 2024. Yesterday eleven Michigan Legislators filed their principal brief in an appeal to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming their constitutional rights have been violated.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, (“Elections Clause”), state legislatures are given the constitutional power and authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections.
In 2018 and 2022 amendments to the Michigan Constitution altered election laws through a process that bypassed the state legislature, thereby encroaching on the individual legislators’ federally-protected and mandated constitutional authority.
In April 2024 the District Court dismissed the 11 legislators’ original lawsuit, not on the merits, but because the court held that the legislators did not have standing to bring the case. Standing is a term meaning, in essence, that these legislators were not the proper people to bring this case before a court.
The brief’s “Statement of Issue” reads as follows:
Whether state legislators have standing to sue state executive officials for enacting and continuing to permit and enforce Michigan citizen-initiated petition-and-ballot amendments to the state constitution regulating federal elections, without state legislative participation, in violation of the state legislators’ § 1983-enforceable individual rights or privileges under the Elections Clause.
Representative Steve Carra (R), leader of the House Freedom Caucus and a plaintiff in the case, disagreed with the judge’s decision and is optimistic the Appellate court will overturn the prior ruling. “If I, as a legislator, don’t have standing to say election laws are being passed without legislature approval, then who does? The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution protects legislative authority to determine the times, places, and manner of elections.”
State Senator Jonathan Lindsey (R), also a plaintiff, concurred with Carra. “I disagree with the judge's decision to deny my right as a legislator to protect the role granted to me by the U.S. Constitution. When a federal judge misuses their power by denying a valid case to be heard, it damages our entire body politic. I am pleased we are appealing this decision.”
The Founding Fathers feared the government would devolve into authoritarian rule, Carra explained. They wrote both the Elections Clause and the Electors Clause in Articles I and II of the Constitution of the United States, “specifically to put the power to protect elections in the hands of We the People through their locally elected state legislators.”
Attorney Erick Kaardal, who built his 30-year career based on leveling the playing field for working people against the government, is now employing those same skills to help legislators. He explained, “Under the US Constitution’s Elections Clause, individual state legislators—not the group—have the federal right to vote on election laws subject to Congressionally-enacted laws. That power is supreme under the US Constitution. When those federal rights are violated by executive branch officials or otherwise, recourse to federal courts is necessary to protect the individual state legislators’ federal rights. The US District Court decision exclusively gives the right to sue to the Attorney General or the State legislature. But reading the text of the Elections Clause shows the individual state legislators can sue too.” Kaardal, of Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., is representing the case.
State Senator Jim Runestad (R), a plaintiff in the case, emphasized the need for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule in favor of the legislators. “It is extremely important to have these constitutional questions adjudicated as rapidly as possible,” he said. “I am a firm believer in the Constitution. The people have a right to have this issue decided in a court of law, so everyone can have confidence that we are preserving civil rights and obeying the Constitution.”
The lawsuit (Case No. 1:23-cv-1025) was first heard in the U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. It names as defendants Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and Jonathan Brater, Director of the Bureau of Elections.
At issue are constitutional amendments that ushered in the most dramatic changes to Michigan’s election laws in a decade. The non-legislatively adopted provisions allow same-day voter registrations without valid proof of identity, nine to 29 days of early in-person voting, private funding of election administration, and no-excuse absentee voting procedures. The adopted ballot proposals also changed in-person voting procedures, reduced board of canvasser authority, and created an independent redistricting commission.
Carra said the powers who sought to change Michigan’s elections laws “weaponized millions of dollars from out of state against the voting public of Michigan using deceptive tactics.” According to Ballotpedia, of the total $31.7 million used to promote Proposal 2 (the Constitutional amendment to change election law), 74% came from out of state, with $11.3 million pouring in from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 501(c)4 nonprofit based in Washington D.C. The George Soros Open Society Foundation, a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in New York, accounted for $1.2 million of the outstate money.
Kaardal has overseen more than 1,000 cases and specializes in constitutional and appellate law. He has achieved 63 election integrity lawfare successes and won two U.S. Supreme Court victories. He graduated from Harvard and earned his law degree from the University of Chicago Law School.
Michigan Fair Elections, the sponsor of the lawsuit, is a Michigan-based, non-profit 501(c)3 organization. Its local task forces are dedicated to restoring fair and honest elections through education, local citizen participation, and litigation. MFE continues to remain at the forefront of defending the U.S. Constitution, citizen rights, and election integrity through education and counter lawfare.
To view the full brief, click here
COULD BE INTERESTING
📌
The appeal from Biden stooge Jane M. Beckering’s Western District of Michigan courtroom goes to the Sixth Circuit.
What happens when a state constitution conflicts with the US Constitution? Maybe it’s been answered before but I don’t know.
I wonder how the legislature let this Constitutional Amendment go before the people in the first place since it is such an egregious violation of the US Constitution.
And the notion that the state legislators have no standing is preposterous. Both the federal and state constitutions put the power to control elections in the legislature which represents the citizens. Neither constitution said that could be overridden by a State Constitutional Amendment.
They are dead right too. But I don’t trust the lefty courts.
For decades, liberal courts have found standing for groups like the National Resource Council, the Sierra Club, LULAC and every other left-wing group when they sue for the wildest, most vague reasons, so long as they are reasons approved by the leftist. But, these same courts are strangely very picky when a conservative group brings a case, even when the relationship to the plaintiffs and the cause are clearly and closely related.
This case is a good example.
How do legislators not have standing when they are voters.
Michigan is screwed for Republicans in the future with the two new house bills that have passed and now disallow recounts based on fraud claims. If a mistake is claimed it has to go to county prosecutor where mistake is claimed, and then, recount only if it would have made a difference.
While it is clear it is easy to extract this interpretation from the Elections Clause as written, its construction and purpose needs to be seen in larger context. I doubt it was the Founder's intent to use the Elections Clause of the Constitution to enforce State election laws against the States; it was to preclude the Federal government from establishing the manner in which the States conducted elections (a principle the SCOTUS has virtually discounted via the 14th Amendment). A ruling to this effect would be a wierd sort of incorporation but it probably can be argued by Court precedent.
Wierd case.
Marbury v. Madison re: null and void
There’s a lot of judges in our country who need to be removed from the bench.
“the court held that the legislators did not have standing”
No standing? Every citizen in the state has standing. Their jerk wad bureaucrats changed election law AGAINST constitutional laws. Let me guess. The District Judge who threw it out is a raging liberal.
One of the most shameful cases of lawfare.
Alternate electors in case needed if the Michigan vote fraud was properly exposed and the Dems would say “You’re right but gosh, too bad, there aren’t any electors now.” That is all. No one was trying to commit a crime.
One of these GOP people is a town’s mayor and others are respected in business and local politics. The lawfare Dems treated them like their own thieves and pedophiles they always let go home instead of going to jail.
These state legislators most certainly have standing. It was their duty to make the state election laws. It was not the duty of a majority of votes counted on a referendum.
It could be argued that the judge has no jurisdiction over election laws either. It is the exclusive domain of the legislative body, not the executive branch elections secretary either.
EC
Who is the judge that dismissed the case?
That pesky constitution thingie takes prescidence.
In other words, if any law violates the constitution thingie then that law is null and void.
And on the national level, the house has the power to charge and impeach judges.
Why is this not being done?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.