Graveline v. Benson

992 F.3d 524

Christopher GRAVELINE; Willard H. Johnson; Michael Leibson ; Kellie K. Deming, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.Jocelyn BENSON, Secretary of State of Michigan; Jonathan Brater, Director of Michigan Bureau of Elections, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellants,Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 20-1337

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: December 16, 2020

Decided and Filed: March 29, 2021

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.

This is the parties’ second time before our court in regard to the constitutionality of a constellation of Michigan laws that, in combination, govern an independent candidate's ability to be placed on the ballot for statewide office. Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Graveline attempted to get his name on Michigan's November 2018 general election ballot as an independent, non-partisan candidate for attorney general. The other plaintiffs are registered Michigan voters who supported Graveline's candidacy and who intended to vote for him. Together, they challenge the Michigan laws that set forth the requirements for Graveline's name to appear on the general election ballot. Plaintiffs contend that these laws deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech and association, equal protection, and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Previously, this court denied Defendants-Appellants’ motion for an emergency stay pending their appeal of the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the provisions on the grounds that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the provisions violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Subsequently, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denied Defendants’ motion, issued a permanent injunction, and implemented an interim requirement allowing independent candidates to qualify for statewide offices by submitting a qualifying petition with 12,000 signatures. Defendants then filed a motion to amend the district court's findings to clarify the contours of the interim signature requirement, which the district court denied. Defendants now appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the denial of their motion to amend.

Applying the analytical framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze , 460 U.S. 780, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), and in Burdick v. Takushi , 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992), we hold that the challenged provisions, applied in combination, impose a severe burden on the constitutional rights of independent candidates and their potential voter-supporters. Because the provisions are not narrowly drawn to advance compelling state interests, Michigan's statutory scheme for qualifying independent candidates to be placed on the ballot violates the Constitution. Due to the impermissible infringement on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, we also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in crafting its remedy. Thus, we AFFIRM the rulings of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Michigan allows independent candidates running for statewide office to be placed on the general election ballot if the candidate submits an affidavit and a "qualifying petition." Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.590c (2008). A qualifying petition must have at least 30,000 valid signatures and must be submitted no later than "the one hundred-tenth day before the general election." Id .; id. § 168.544f. Additionally, a qualifying petition must be signed by at least 100 registered voters in each of at least half of Michigan's fourteen congressional districts ("geographic distribution requirement"). Id. § 168.590b(4). Moreover, the signatures on a qualifying petition must be obtained within 180 days of the filing deadline. Id. § 168.590b(3). The filing deadline for the November 6, 2018 election was July 19, 2018. Therefore, the official process for an independent candidate trying to run for attorney general in the November 6, 2018 general election began in late January 2018—180 days prior to the July 19 deadline.

In contrast, the candidates for attorney general from the major political parties—Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian—are nominated at their party's convention rather than elected in a primary. The party must hold its convention "not less than 60 days before the general November election." Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.591(1). In 2018, that deadline fell on September 7, 2018. However, both the Republican and Democratic Parties held their nominating conventions on August 25, 2018. R. 1-3 (Graveline Decl. ¶ 3 n.1) (Page ID #30). Given this legally mandated timing sequence, an independent candidate likely would be ignorant of the identities of the major party nominees before the independent candidate filing deadline.

Graveline's efforts to qualify for the ballot reflect how the interplay of these deadlines affect independent candidates. Graveline waited to begin his attempt to qualify for the ballot until June 4, 2018. R. 1-3 (Graveline Decl. ¶ 9) (Page ID #33). His lack of knowledge of the major party nominees played a significant role in his delay. Graveline decided to enter the race for attorney general only "when it became reasonably clear to [him] that the Democratic and Republican Parties would be nominating candidates who d[id] not subscribe to [his] ideals." Id. ¶ 7 (Page ID #32). Thus, Graveline decided to run after learning the identity of the candidate that the Democratic Party informally "endorsed" in April 2018 and the two candidates of the Republican Party who each "announced" at some undisclosed time. Id. ¶ 3 n.1 (Page ID #30); id. ¶ 4 (Page ID #4). A second factor also led to some delay in the launch of Graveline's campaign: Graveline served as an Assistant United States Attorney, and the Hatch Act required Graveline to resign from federal service before he could formally file as a candidate for an elected office. Id. ¶ 8 (Page ID #32–33).

From June 5 until the July 19 deadline, Graveline, along with 231 volunteers and a signature-gathering firm, collected 14,157 signatures. Id. ¶¶ 11, 15 (Page ID #34, 35). This effort required 1,000 hours of volunteer time and the expenditure of $38,000. Id. ¶15 (Page ID #35). Graveline attempted to file his petition on July 19, but the State rejected it because it did not contain 30,000 signatures.¹ R. 1-9 (Bureau of Elections Email) (Page ID #57).

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on July 27, 2018, and moved for a preliminary injunction on August 3. R. 1 (Compl.) (Page ID #17); R. 4 (Pls.’ Mot. For Prelim. Inj.) (Page ID #91). After briefing and argument, the district court granted the motion and ordered that "(1) Graveline must immediately present his qualifying petition ... to the Bureau of Elections; (2) The State must accept Graveline's filing as complete and determine the validity of the signatures in time to place Graveline on the ballot if he has sufficient valid signatures; and (3) If Graveline has at least 5,000 valid signatures ... [,] his name must be placed on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot as an independent candidate for the Office of Michigan Attorney General." Graveline v. Johnson , 336 F. Supp. 3d 801, 817 (E.D. Mich. 2018).

The district court issued its preliminary injunction after finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of showing that, under the Anderson - Burdick framework, "the combination of Michigan's ballot access regulations severely burdens their fundamental rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments." Id. at 812. The district court also found that Michigan "[fell] far short of satisfying its burden to show that the severe burdens caused by the scheme are justified." Id. at 815. Finally, the district court found that the remaining factors, "whether Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; whether an injunction would cause substantial harm to others; [and] whether the public interest would be served by an injunction[,] weigh[ed] in favor of an injunction." Id. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2018. The same day, Defendants filed a motion in the district court to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. R. 14 (Defs.’ Mot. to Dist. Ct. for Stay) (Page ID #171). The district court denied the motion for a stay on August 30.

On September 4, 2018, Defendants moved this court for a stay of the district court's injunction pending appeal. We denied the emergency motion to stay, holding, inter alia, that based on the evidence in the record, Michigan's laws, in combination, created a severe burden on Plaintiffs’ rights, and that the laws were not "narrowly drawn to protect [the State's] interests." Graveline v. Johnson , 747 F. App'x 408, 414–15 (6th Cir. 2018). Consequently, the Bureau of Elections reviewed Graveline's petition and placed him on the ballot for the November 2018 general election as an independent candidate for attorney general.

After discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, on which the district court heard argument. R. 28 (Defs.’ Mot. For Summ. J.); R. 30 (Pls.’ Mot. For Summ. J.). During the hearing, Plaintiffs clarified that, contrary to our statement in the denial of the motion for an emergency stay, see Graveline , 747 F. App'x at 410 n.1, they maintain their challenge to the geographic-distribution requirement because it "compound[s] the burden imposed by the high signature requirement [and] the early filing deadline." R. 60 (Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 30–32) (Page ID #1424–26). Proceeding with that clarification, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The district court first determined that Plaintiffs continued to have...