A group of 11 Michigan lawmakers is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to keep fighting in court to affirm their constitutionally specified powers to prescribe the conduct of federal elections in the state.
The group includes two state senators and nine representatives, all Republicans.
Erick Kaardal, the lead attorney for the petitioners, told The Epoch Times that Michigan’s election laws have undergone major changes since 2018 without any input from the state Legislature as required by Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
Section 4 reads in part: “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for (U.S.) senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
Kardaal stated that the legislators he represents are ultimately seeking enforcement of Article I, Section 4 “as an express delegation of power to the state Legislature to act with respect to federal elections.”
According to Kaardal, the unconstitutional changes entirely circumvented the state Legislature through two petition drives in 2018 (Proposals 2 and 3) and one drive in 2022 (Proposal 2).
Kaardal said that all led to ballot proposals that were approved by the voters to amend the Michigan Constitution to allow same-day voter registration without valid proof of identification, make the use of ballot drop boxes mandatory in every county in the state, and allow the private funding of election administration.
The voter-initiated amendments also enshrined in the state constitution allow nine to 29 days of early in-person voting and no-excuse absentee voting.
They reduced the authority of county boards of canvassers, changed several in-person voting procedures, and created an independent redistricting commission.
Patrice Johnson, founder and chair of the Michigan Fair Elections Institute, an election integrity watchdog group, told The Epoch Times: “Outside actors know they can’t mislead legislatures to pass these election integrity-killing laws, so they pour millions of dollars into running deceptive advertising campaigns to bamboozle voters into approving them.
“Now, these actors are trying to repeat the unconstitutional process and put Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot for 2026.”
Johnson said enshrining such controversial laws in the state constitution makes them “virtually permanent” and very difficult to change.
Lack of Standing
A federal district court judge tossed out the legislators’ original complaint, filed in September 2023, for lack of standing.The decision was upheld by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2024.
“This case is about whether the people’s representatives can speak on their behalf in response to blatant violations of the U.S. Constitution by state officials,” William Wagner of the Great Lakes Justice Center and co-counsel on the petition, told The Epoch Times.
“It is important that the people have some remedy.”
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a defendant in the case, said in an email to The Epoch Times: “Michigan voters have a right to enact laws that reflect their values, and politicians have a duty to stand by the will of the voters.
“The idea that the time, place, and manner of federal elections law-making is beyond the right of voters to self-determine is anti-democratic, and already multiple courts have reaffirmed this under law.
“I will always defend Michigan voters’ rights to amend our constitution through ballot initiatives—even and especially when we are called to defend those rights before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, did not respond to requests for comment.
Kaardal told The Epoch Times that the main issue before the high court is whether “individual legislators have standing to bring Election Clause enforcement claims against state executive branch officials when the state legislature itself does not sue.”
“The lower courts ruled that only the state Senate and state House, by mutual agreement, or the state’s attorney general have standing to bring such a case,” he said.
“Allowing individual state legislators to defend the U.S. Constitution in court is especially important in a state like Michigan where, though the Republican majority in the House may want to take such legal action, the Democrat-controlled Senate can opt not to sue, thereby thwarting the action.
“An individual legislator’s right to sue over constitutional violations when ballot initiatives completely bypass the legislature to change election law is even more important when the state Senate, governor, secretary of state, director of the Bureau of Elections, and the attorney general are politically aligned.”
Nowhere to Turn for Relief
“Without individual legislators having standing, this situation affords no recourse and allows for the violation of election laws with impunity,” Kardaal said.Despite the two court losses, Kaardal remains optimistic.
“The Sixth Circuit did say that the individual state legislators’ standing claim was fair to litigate,” he said.
“We are asking the high court to review the case and grant the legislators standing, so the courts can decide the case on its merits.
“This case has yet to be heard on the merits, which are very strong.”
