Tag: Michigan Election Law

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – June 17, 2022

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – June 17, 2022; Legal, Legislative, and Regulatory Insights

  1.  Court of Appeals Considers Arguments in Significant No-Fault Case

An important case involving Michigan’s auto no-fault law is before the Michigan Court of Appeals. The dispute in the case of Andary, et al v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, et al is focused on whether the no-fault reforms passed in 2019 apply retroactively for people injured before the law was passed. The plaintiffs in the case argue that retroactive application is unconstitutional.

Why it Matters: The circuit court in this case sided with insurers. To the extent that the appellate court reverses in favor of plaintiffs, it could create considerable uncertainty in the no-fault insurance marketplace in Michigan.

———

  1. Michigan Supreme Court Blocks Republican Candidates for Governor from Ballot

The Michigan Supreme Court recently denied requests by three Republican candidates for governor to be placed on the primary ballot, after state election officials ruled that their campaigns had submitted forged signatures. Fraser Trebilcock election law attorney Garett Koger was quoted by The New York Times in an article discussing the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision.

Why it Matters: The Republican primary for governor has been chaotic, to say the least. Five of ten candidates have now been removed from the primary ballot. Candidate Ryan Kelley was arrested by federal agents this week and charged with four misdemeanors related to his alleged attendance at last year’s U.S. Capitol riot. And former Detroit police chief James Craig announced that he is mounting a write in campaign for the August 2 primary. These different scenarios all highlight the need for experienced election law counsel.

———

  1. IRS Does Rare Mid-Year Adjustment to Mileage Rates

The Internal Revenue Service recently announced that it has increased the 2022 mileage rates for the last six months of the year in response to high gasoline prices, including rates for business travel, deductible medical or moving expenses, and deduction for charitable contributions. Learn more about the new mileage rates here.

Why it Matters: Midyear increases in mileage rates are rare. Accordingly, self-employed individuals who operate an automobile for business use, as well as employers who reimburse employees who use their own vehicles to conduct business, should take note of the changes.

———

  1. New Education and Information Requirements for Michigan Schools

New legislation was recently enacted requiring schools to provide informational materials on post-secondary education options. The Michigan Department of Education must create informational packets, including information about Advanced Placement programs, all public universities and community colleges in the state, and student loans and tuition assistance, that will be distributed to all students in 8th to 12th grades each year. In addition, by overwhelming margins, the Michigan House and Senate recently passed legislation that would mandate personal finance education at the high school level.

Why it Matters: To remain economically competitive, it is important that Michigan continues to focus on having a well-educated workforce in order to attract and retain employers.

———

  1. City of Detroit Faces Lawsuits Over Adult-Use Recreational Licenses

JARS Cannabis and House of Dank, two companies that own medical marijuana dispensaries licensed in Detroit, are suing the City of Detroit over the revised ordinance claiming that the new law would signal the end for existing medical marijuana facilities already in the area. The two companies pointed to a provision in the revised ordinance that prevents existing medical facilities in the area from getting a recreational license until 2027.

Why it Matters: State law mandates that municipalities cannot adopt “unreasonably impracticable” adult-use cannabis ordinances. As the City of Detroit faces multiple lawsuits over their revised ordinance, other municipalities may face the same issue.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Insurance Defense | Emily Vanderlaan

Election Law | Garett Koger

Business & Tax | Liz Siefker

Cannabis | Klint Kesto

Michigan Court of Appeals Invalidates Lame Duck Laws Restricting Voter Initiatives

Act No. 608 of the Public Acts of 2018, approved and given immediate effect in that year’s lame duck session, amended several provisions of the Michigan Election Law to create new more restrictive procedural requirements governing voter initiatives proposing initiated laws, constitutional amendments, and referendum of legislation. Most notably, the act required that no more than 15% of the petition signatures used to determine the sufficiency of support for an initiative petition may be provided by voters in any single congressional election district – a restrictive requirement finding no support in the governing constitutional language. Other new provisions required that initiative petitions include a check box to identify petition circulators as volunteers or paid circulators and required paid circulators to file an affidavit identifying themselves as such before circulating petitions for voter signatures.

This legislation has been widely criticized as an impermissible attempt to limit the People’s constitutionally-reserved right to pursue voter initiatives proposing amendment of the Constitution, adoption of initiated laws, and referendum of enacted legislation. The new restrictions pertaining to the collection of petition signatures were particularly problematic in light of abundant case law from our Supreme Court holding that the Legislature may not impose statutory restrictions that curtail or unduly burden the free exercise of the People’s constitutional right to pursue voter-initiated proposals. Thus, it came as no surprise that the constitutional validity of this new legislation has been challenged in the courts.

On January 27, 2020, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its published decision addressing the constitutional challenges to 2018 PA 608 in the consolidated cases of League of Women Voters, et al. v Jocelyn Benson and Senate and House of Representatives v Jocelyn Benson.  (Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 350938 and 351073) In an Opinion written by Judge Deborah Servitto and joined by Judge Michael Gadola, the Court affirmed the decision of Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens holding that the new 15% limitation on petition signatures collected from any single congressional district and the new requirement that petitions include a check box identifying the circulator as a paid or volunteer circulator are unconstitutional and therefore cannot be enforced. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the League of Women Voters and the Secretary of State that the new requirement for paid circulators to file an affidavit identifying themselves as paid circulators before circulating petitions is also unconstitutional and therefore cannot be enforced, reversing Judge Stephens’ decision to the contrary.  And like Judge Stephens, the Court of Appeals majority found that the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives lacked standing to pursue their claim for declaratory relief but received their briefs and considered their arguments in support of the legislation, nonetheless.

Judge Mark Boonstra wrote a separate Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He disagreed with the majority’s holding that the Legislature lacked standing to present its claims and its conclusion that the new check box requirement was unconstitutional but agreed that the new 15% signature limitation and the affidavit requirement were unconstitutional and could not be enforced.

Secretary of State Benson had joined the League of Women Voters in challenging the constitutionality of Act 608, and thus, the Senate and House of Representatives are the only parties that will have cause to seek further review in the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court, which had previously called for an expedited adjudication of this matter, has ordered that any application for leave to appeal this decision of the Court of Appeals to that Court must be filed no later than Monday, February 3rd.,  so it will soon become known whether further review of this matter will be pursued.

Graham K. Crabtree has been an appellate specialist in the Lansing office of Fraser Trebilcock since 1996. He was previously employed as Majority Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the Michigan Senate from 1991 to 1996 and has been a member of the State Bar Appellate Practice Section Council since 2007.