—
LANSING, Mich. — The fight over a Michigan ballot proposal that failed to be certified after an impasse on the Board of State Canvassers has been taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Americans for Citizen Voting (ACV) proposal would clarify that only U.S. citizens may vote in Michigan elections, require voters appearing to vote to present photo identification, require the Secretary of State to verify citizenship and require systematic reviews of Michigan’s voter rolls for accuracy.
More than 700,000 signatures were collected in support of the effort, and supporters say Michiganders deserve a vote on it.
“Regardless of whether you’re for citizen-only voting or you’re against that, whether you are for voter ID or you are against that, this is about fundamental democracy,” ACV Chairman Paul Jacob said.
VIDEO
The legal battle began after the board’s two Republicans and two Democratic members couldn’t agree the ballot proposal had enough valid signatures.
“They took over five months to even give us an answer, and then when they gave us an answer, we saw that there were all kinds of signatures they marked as invalid that were valid,” Jacob said. “We’ve shown the proof of that, and then, of course, they refused to accept the proof.”
Typically, challenges on ballot proposals play out at the Michigan Supreme Court, and while it was submitted there, the state justices have yet to respond.
For the campaign, time is of the essence, with ballots going out at the middle of this month.
“This is an extraordinary emergency appeal that we’ve been forced to do because we didn’t get due process with the bureau of elections, we didn’t get due process with the Board of Canvassers, and then we go to the Michigan Supreme Court and it’s crickets,” Jacob said.
Jacob believes the constitutional rights of those who signed onto the proposal are being violated, claiming bias at the state Bureau of Elections, which reviews proposals, and the board.
ACV is seeking an immediate injunction to place the measure on the November ballot.
The board did not return a request for comment, but justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the state to respond to ACV’s petition.
In their response, the state denies the allegations, maintains the process was proper and claims ACV is cherry picking issues by asking the court to ignore decisions in the campaign’s favor.
The state also questions the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The court should decline to put its thumb on the scale in this manner, particularly in the case of a state administrative proceeding where a state court can provide more fulsome and comprehensive review,” the state response reads.
Jacob appreciates Kavanaugh’s interest in looking at this case and hopes an injunction comes down soon.
He said not having the measure on the ballot is an immediate harm to voters, contrary to what the state maintains, meaning the injunction is necessary and the case can play out in the coming months.
If the proposal is on the ballot and the state ultimately prevails, Jacob said the votes cast likely wouldn’t matter and the measure wouldn’t take effect.
