“This lawsuit is about defending the constitution and rule of law,” Jonathan Lindsey said. Lindsey is a republican state senator for Michigan’s 17th district.

If successful, their case could overturn both propositions in time to prevent their effect on the 2024 state and federal elections. And as the legislators' lawyer Erick Kaardal said, that’s their goal.

What’s going on?

The lawsuit, filed through the law office of Mohrman, Kaardal and Erikson, would undo two recent ballot proposals based on article one, section four of the federal constitution, also referenced as the election clause.

The election clause gives state legislatures the power to regulate the time, place and manner of elections held for senators and representatives.

Named as defendants in the case are Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections.

Proposition 2 from 2022 made amendments to sections four and seven of article two of the state constitution, according to the house fiscal agency.

The proposition also enumerated several voting-related rights:

A fundamental right to vote.
Use of an early voting site up to nine days before election day.
Counting of absentee ballots distributed to military personnel or those living overseas if properly completed and postmarked before election day.
Use of a photo ID or a signed affidavit to verify voter identity.
Placement on a permanent absentee voter list.
Prepaid ballot postage and a state funded-ballot tracking notification system.
Access to ballot drop boxes.

It was approved by almost 60% of Michigan voters, according to ballotpedia.

Proposition 3 of 2018 was similar, but established the foundations for Proposition 2.

“If approved by a majority of voters, Proposal 18-3 would amend Section 4 (Place and manner of elections) of Article II of the Michigan Constitution of 1963,” according to the proposition.

This proposal was passed by almost a 67% popular majority.

Out of 38 senators and 110 representatives in the Michigan legislature, two senators and nine representatives are serving as plaintiffs in the case. They are:

Jonathan Lindsey, district 17 senator
Jim Runestad, district 23 senator
Steve Carra, district 36 representative
James DeSana, district 29 representative
Joseph Fox, district 101 representative
Neil Friske, district 107 representative
Matt Maddock, district 51 representative
Brad Paquette, district 37 representative
Angela Rigas, district 79 representative
Joshua Schriver, district 66 representative
Rachelle Smit, district 43 representative

The day before their press conference, Gov. Whitmer put out a press release announcing the passage of four voting rights-related bills in the State House.

House Bill (HB) 4210 allows for the electronic return of ballots by absent uniformed service members and their spouses.
HB 4567 amends the ballot-challenge requirements.
HB 4568 allows for transportation assistance to get seniors and eligible voters to the polls.
HB 4570 requires the Secretary of State to maintain an online portal for voters to request an absentee ballot.

"As governor, I am focused on protecting every citizen’s ability to make their voice heard," Whitmer said in a press release Sept. 27. "I am proud of the work we have done to expand voting rights in Michigan with the overwhelming passage of Proposal 2 last November and a series of bipartisan bills that I was proud to sign into law this year."

The legislators' argument

During a press conference Thursday morning, attorney Kaardal introduced himself and the lawsuit.

“I’ve been suing the government practically my whole life,” Kaardal said. “And I’ve been suing the government to improve the government."

He considers the propositions a constitutional violation because the elections clause gives the state legislatures the right to regulate the time, place and manner of elections. This is omething the proposals also do.

In a presentation for a press conference, Rep. Steve Carra, a Republican, said the proposals were passed because the public was fed misinformation.

“When deceptive tactics are used like we saw… they tricked the people of Michigan into supporting something and amending the constitution in a way that they otherwise would not have agreed with,” Carra said.

He specifically mentioned advertisements from the Promote the Vote activist group in Michigan.

"They said that it put photo ID requirements directly in Michigan's constitution, but it also provided another option," Carra said.

Proposal 2 does allow voters who don't have an ID to sign a written document instead of being turned away.

Republican plaintiff Lindsey agreed, and attributed the misinformation to “leftist activists” who “tried to get the Michigan legislature to pass laws making our elections more vulnerable.” He was referring to various past attempts to make voting more accessible through legislation.

Carra also cited the $23.6 million in support proposition 22-2 that mostly came from out-of-state sources:

Sixteen Thirty Fund, $10.5 million in cash contributions
Lynn Schusterman, $1.5 million in cash contributions
Open Society Foundation, $1.2 million in cash contributions
Hopewell fund, $675,000 in cash contributions

Kaardal called the propositions “exciting” civil rights violations against the state legislators, and said they “violated civil rights to promote voting rights.”

“It’s a civil rights violation when state or local officials, under the color of state law, violate federal rights,” he said.

What about popular support?

A ballot initiative is a form of direct democracy that allows citizens of Michigan to vote to amend the state constitution according to a majority vote, according to ballotpedia.

When asked whether their lawsuit went against the interests of the public, Lindsey said that the true disservice to the public was the misinformation.

“Going out there and parading the idea that Proposition 2 passed by 60%, when what we saw was one of the most corrupt campaigns I’ve ever seen, where voters were lied to; that’s the disservice to the people of Michigan,” Lindsey said.

Promote the Vote, according to its website, “is the leading nonpartisan, trusted voice on preserving and protecting voting rights in Michigan.” The organization was instrumental in getting Proposals 2 and 3 on their respective ballots.

In a public statement, Promote the Vote Executive Director Michael Davis Jr. commented on the lawsuit, calling it “frivolous."

“The power-hungry anti-democratic forces behind this lawsuit seek to steal the power properly exercised by the voters of Michigan for themselves,” Davis said. “There’s not a chance in hell that Promote the Vote, our coalition partners, the courts or the voters of Michigan are going to let that happen.”

He also mentioned the popular support the vote received, and said simply "the people have spoken."

Supreme Court precedent

Both Kaardal and Lindsey added to their argument by citing the Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper as legal precedent.

The decision in Moore v. Harper, summarized by SCOTUSblog, ruled to limit the scope of the federal elections clause in cases of congressional redistricting, or organizing state voting districts, and judicial review.

“The federal elections clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections and, therefore, did not bar the North Carolina Supreme Court from reviewing the North Carolina legislature’s congressional districting plans for compliance with North Carolina law,” according to SCOTUSblog.

Within the Supreme Court decision, discussion of the federal elections clause (at the top of page 15) does not reference ballot initiatives.

“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” according to the court's final decision.

Lindsey said that the court decision does fortify their argument.

“The few places where we intersect with that case, it actually fortifies the argument we’re making here,” he said.

Cardell added that their hope is to implement their proposed changes before the 2024 election season.

"That's why we filed in September 2023, is to have an impact on the election next year," he said. "We're filing a complaint this morning, and our hope is to have this adjudicated as quickly as possible."

The complaint, a document that formally begins the lawsuit process, was sent to the Southern Division of the Michigan court's Western District to hear arguments and eventually come to a decision.