By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
Election guidance provided to clerks on the spouses and dependents of overseas and military voters casting ballots and how to handle them is consistent with the law and the Michigan Constitution, a Michigan Court of Claims judge ruled Monday in a lawsuit brought by the Michigan Republican Party.
The lawsuit alleged that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Elections Director Jonathan Brater issued election manual guidance extending voter qualifications to people who have never resided in Michigan.
Judge Sima Patel in an opinion and order issued Monday for MIGOP v. Benson (COC Docket No. 24-000156) called the lawsuit from the MIGOP and the Republican National Committee an 11th hour attempt to disenfranchise voters which was ultimately barred by laches.
Patel, who was appointed to the bench by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, granted Benson's motion for summary disposition and denied the state party and the Republicans' cross motion.
Benson asked for sanctions against the plaintiffs, but Patel denied the request.
Patel noted that disenfranchisement was a serious matter and quoted from U.S. Supreme Court precedent that "any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."
"At any given time, tens of thousands of United States citizens – including Michigan residents – live abroad, serving our country in the armed forces and diplomatic corps. Others live abroad for civilian purposes," Patel wrote. "Sometimes, spouses and dependents accompany these overseas United States citizens, sacrificing for the good of their families. And sometimes these spouses and dependents leave the United States before registering to vote, or are born and raised overseas, reaching the age of suffrage without ever residing in this state or country. Congress protects the right of these citizens to vote, as does the Michigan Legislature."
Patel wrote that at "4:09 p.m. on the 28th day before the November 5, 2024, general election, plaintiffs … seek a declaration from this court invalidating instructions issued by defendants … designed to allow these spouses and dependents to register and cast their votes."
Further, Michigan voters have already begun casting their absent voter ballots, Patel said.
"According to the secretary of state, approximately 31 percent of AVBs had been returned by October 15, 2024, or more than 670,000 ballots," Patel wrote. "The AVBs of subject group members are surely among those already cast. This leads to two avenues of prejudice: how are the defendants expected to cull the AVBs of subject group members who have never resided in Michigan, and by the time these electors are uncovered and deemed ineligible, how could they re-register to vote in time and in a proper location for the 2024 general election?"
The plaintiffs said they simply wanted the challenged language in the manual to be revised, Patel said, but the effect would render registered voters – and many who may have already cast absentee ballots – ineligible to vote.
"The defendants argue that such a belated purge of an entire group from the elector rolls may violate federal law," Patel wrote. "For example, (federal law) provides that a state may not start a program 'to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters,' less than 90 days before an election. The only exceptions to that limit are for individuals rendered ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or death. Creating a new program to systematically eliminate the current subject group does not fall within one of these exceptions."
Patel said it would be extremely difficult or impossible for Benson and Brater to "design and carry out a program to reject potentially thousands of AVBs at this time."
"The secretary of state has no process in place to distinguish the AVBs cast by absent uniformed and overseas voters whose last residence was in Michigan from AVBs cast by spouses and dependents who gained residence status under MCL 168.759a(3)," Patel wrote. "The defendants are busy with myriad tasks in the final days leading up to a general election in a presidential election year. The plaintiffs' request would require defendants to create an entirely new process to cull those returned AVBs issued to members of the subject group who have never resided in Michigan and remove them before tabulation. It is hard to imagine a more prejudicial situation arising from the plaintiffs' delay."
The complaint was dismissed as barred by laches for those reasons, but Patel also addressed the merits of the challenged language. She ultimately decided that the language complied with federal and state law and the Constitution.
"Consistent with federal law, the Michigan Legislature made a policy choice to allow a small pool of individuals who accompany family members abroad to qualify as Michigan residents for the purpose of voting in Michigan because they are connected to Michigan through their spouse, parent, or someone serving a parental role," Patel wrote. "The Manual explains to local election officials that applications and AVBs from these spouses and dependents are to be tabulated even though the individual has never personally resided in Michigan. Rather, the subject group members are treated as living with their spouse, parent, or someone serving a parental role at that person's last designated Michigan residence for voting purposes."
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson praised the decision in a statement, saying: "Frivolous lawsuits like these, filed just weeks before Election Day, make it harder for the state's election officials to do their jobs and threaten to interfere with our secure and accurate process."
"The court's ruling is an important victory for our military and overseas citizen voters and for the integrity of our elections," she said. "This baseless lawsuit targeted the voting rights of U.S. citizens and their families living abroad, including the children of active-duty military service members. It represents a new low in the ongoing PR campaign to cast doubt on the security of Michigan's elections. The judge rightly refused to allow this last-minute attempt to cause chaos."
Gongwer News Service
Election guidance provided to clerks on the spouses and dependents of overseas and military voters casting ballots and how to handle them is consistent with the law and the Michigan Constitution, a Michigan Court of Claims judge ruled Monday in a lawsuit brought by the Michigan Republican Party.
The lawsuit alleged that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Elections Director Jonathan Brater issued election manual guidance extending voter qualifications to people who have never resided in Michigan.
Judge Sima Patel in an opinion and order issued Monday for MIGOP v. Benson (COC Docket No. 24-000156) called the lawsuit from the MIGOP and the Republican National Committee an 11th hour attempt to disenfranchise voters which was ultimately barred by laches.
Patel, who was appointed to the bench by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, granted Benson's motion for summary disposition and denied the state party and the Republicans' cross motion.
Benson asked for sanctions against the plaintiffs, but Patel denied the request.
Patel noted that disenfranchisement was a serious matter and quoted from U.S. Supreme Court precedent that "any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."
"At any given time, tens of thousands of United States citizens – including Michigan residents – live abroad, serving our country in the armed forces and diplomatic corps. Others live abroad for civilian purposes," Patel wrote. "Sometimes, spouses and dependents accompany these overseas United States citizens, sacrificing for the good of their families. And sometimes these spouses and dependents leave the United States before registering to vote, or are born and raised overseas, reaching the age of suffrage without ever residing in this state or country. Congress protects the right of these citizens to vote, as does the Michigan Legislature."
Patel wrote that at "4:09 p.m. on the 28th day before the November 5, 2024, general election, plaintiffs … seek a declaration from this court invalidating instructions issued by defendants … designed to allow these spouses and dependents to register and cast their votes."
Further, Michigan voters have already begun casting their absent voter ballots, Patel said.
"According to the secretary of state, approximately 31 percent of AVBs had been returned by October 15, 2024, or more than 670,000 ballots," Patel wrote. "The AVBs of subject group members are surely among those already cast. This leads to two avenues of prejudice: how are the defendants expected to cull the AVBs of subject group members who have never resided in Michigan, and by the time these electors are uncovered and deemed ineligible, how could they re-register to vote in time and in a proper location for the 2024 general election?"
The plaintiffs said they simply wanted the challenged language in the manual to be revised, Patel said, but the effect would render registered voters – and many who may have already cast absentee ballots – ineligible to vote.
"The defendants argue that such a belated purge of an entire group from the elector rolls may violate federal law," Patel wrote. "For example, (federal law) provides that a state may not start a program 'to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters,' less than 90 days before an election. The only exceptions to that limit are for individuals rendered ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or death. Creating a new program to systematically eliminate the current subject group does not fall within one of these exceptions."
Patel said it would be extremely difficult or impossible for Benson and Brater to "design and carry out a program to reject potentially thousands of AVBs at this time."
"The secretary of state has no process in place to distinguish the AVBs cast by absent uniformed and overseas voters whose last residence was in Michigan from AVBs cast by spouses and dependents who gained residence status under MCL 168.759a(3)," Patel wrote. "The defendants are busy with myriad tasks in the final days leading up to a general election in a presidential election year. The plaintiffs' request would require defendants to create an entirely new process to cull those returned AVBs issued to members of the subject group who have never resided in Michigan and remove them before tabulation. It is hard to imagine a more prejudicial situation arising from the plaintiffs' delay."
The complaint was dismissed as barred by laches for those reasons, but Patel also addressed the merits of the challenged language. She ultimately decided that the language complied with federal and state law and the Constitution.
"Consistent with federal law, the Michigan Legislature made a policy choice to allow a small pool of individuals who accompany family members abroad to qualify as Michigan residents for the purpose of voting in Michigan because they are connected to Michigan through their spouse, parent, or someone serving a parental role," Patel wrote. "The Manual explains to local election officials that applications and AVBs from these spouses and dependents are to be tabulated even though the individual has never personally resided in Michigan. Rather, the subject group members are treated as living with their spouse, parent, or someone serving a parental role at that person's last designated Michigan residence for voting purposes."
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson praised the decision in a statement, saying: "Frivolous lawsuits like these, filed just weeks before Election Day, make it harder for the state's election officials to do their jobs and threaten to interfere with our secure and accurate process."
"The court's ruling is an important victory for our military and overseas citizen voters and for the integrity of our elections," she said. "This baseless lawsuit targeted the voting rights of U.S. citizens and their families living abroad, including the children of active-duty military service members. It represents a new low in the ongoing PR campaign to cast doubt on the security of Michigan's elections. The judge rightly refused to allow this last-minute attempt to cause chaos."
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
