Michigan Legislators Petition Supreme Court for Enforcement of Constitution’s Elections Clause 

Lawmakers claim standing to sue and argue MI Governor and SOS infringed on their Constitutional rights when ballot initiatives were used to change election laws.  

Two Michigan senators and nine members of the House of Representatives filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The federal lawsuit argues that the U.S. Constitution specifically assigns the regulation of federal elections to state legislatures. The legislators seek enforcement of the Constitution’s Elections Clause as “an express delegation of power to the state legislature to act with respect to federal elections.”

“The issue 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,” said lead Attorney Erick Kaardal, a partner with Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson.

“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. The governor and Secretary of State say no. We, on behalf of the people‘s representatives, say yes,” explained William Wagner, an attorney with the Great Lakes Justice Center, co-counsel on the petition.

The legislator petitioners assert that the Election Clause “mandates state legislatures to regulate federal elections,” and they cite constitutional violations when ballot initiatives completely bypass the legislature to change to election law.

The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause states, “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;” (Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1). Yet, ballot Proposals 2 and 3 in 2018 and Proposal 2 in 2022 completely circumvented the legislature and ushered in the most dramatic changes to Michigan’s election laws in a four decades. Plus, the changes were enshrined in Michigan’s Constitution, making them difficult to alter.

The non-legislatively adopted provisions allow same-day voter registrations without valid proof of identity, a minimum of nine days and up to 29 days of early in-person voting, private funding of election administration, and no-excuse absentee voting procedures. The adopted ballot proposals also changed in-person voting procedures, reduced county board of canvasser authority, and created an independent redistricting commission.

The first round of the legislators’ legal battle began in September 2023 with the filing of the original lawsuit, Lindsey v Whitmer. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case for what it concluded was lack of standing. The legislators, unwilling to take no for an answer, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In December 2024 the appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling. It did, however, state that the individual state legislators’ standing claim was fair to litigate.

The dismissals were based on the Courts’ determination that the legislators lacked standing, so the case has yet to be heard on its merits (MI Legislators File Suit). The term standing means only the proper, injured people may bring a case before a court. According to the lower court’s ruling, only the Senate and House by mutual agreement or the state’s attorney general have standing to sue. Now, the legislators are asking the high court to review their case and grant them standing, so the courts can decide the case on its merits.

“If I, as a legislator, don’t have standing to say election laws are being passed without legislative approval, then who does?” asked state Representative Steve Carra. Carra, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus, is a plaintiff in the case.

Representative Rachelle Smit, House Speaker Pro Tempore and also a plaintiff in the case, agreed, “What happens to our Constitutional rights if those who would undermine our elections find ways to usurp the Constitution’s protections, and no one has ‘standing’ to fight for those rights?”

The petition’s “Statement of the Case” states,  

…[C]itizen petition-led ballot proposals—initiatives—to amend the Michigan constitution regulating federal elections have been allowed in 2018 and 2022 without state legislative participation and approval. Remarkably, the state legislature never approved the 2018 and 2022 state constitutional amendments regulating federal elections. This same, invalid process may be used in 2026 elections and beyond.

Kaardal, who specializes in constitutional and appellate law, emphasized the need for the high court to settle lower court inconsistencies. “Unfortunately, federal court opinions have unintentionally created a checkerboard pattern of Elections Clause enforcement.”

If SCOTUS grants the petition, it will issue a writ of certiorari, ordering the lower court to deliver its records regarding the case so that the higher court may review it. The U.S. Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari to cases that have national significance and set precedents in harmonizing different rulings in the federal and state courts. SCOTUS typically accepts less than 200 cases out of the more than 7,000 petitions filed every year.

“The courts need to decide these important legal questions,” Senator Lindsey explained, “especially as they relate to responsibilities granted to the state legislatures by the United States Constitution. I am honored to play a role in this effort to restore the rule of law in Michigan.”

Kaardal explained the legal challenge. “The state legislators’ original complaint in federal court challenged the constitutionality of the 2018 and 2022 Michigan constitutional amendments because the statewide referendum changed election laws without state legislative participation. Now, this legally unauthorized tactic is being weaponized across the country.

Patrice Johnson, founder and chair of Michigan Fair Elections Institute, commented regarding the importance of the case. “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. We have to stop this. Now.”

The eleven legislator plaintiffs are Senators Jonathan Lindsey (R) and Jim Runestad (R) and Representatives Steve Carra (R), James DeSana (R), Joseph Fox (R) Neil Friske (R), Matt Maddock (R), Brad Paquette (R), Angela Rigas(R), Joshua Schriver (R), and Rachelle Smit (R).

The defendants in the lawsuit are Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D), Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D), and Jonathan Brater, director, Michigan Bureau of Elections.

Kaardal, a partner of Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., specializes in suing the government to improve it on behalf of regular people. Over the course of his three-decade career, Kaardal has overseen more than 1,000 cases and achieved 63 election integrity lawfare successes, including two U.S. Supreme Court victories. He graduated from Harvard and earned his law degree at University of Chicago Law School.

Co-counsel Great Lakes Justice Center is a Michigan-based, non-profit 501(c)3 organization. GLJC’s mission is to speak truth on behalf of the persecuted and most vulnerable and to champion the cause of the defenseless and oppressed.

Michigan Fair Elections Institute, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization, is sponsoring the lawsuit to preserve legislator civil rights. MFEI is a Michigan-based, non-profit 501(c)3 organization. Its local task forces and chapters are dedicated to restoring fair and honest elections through education, local citizen participation, and litigation.

The post Michigan Legislators Petition Supreme Court for Enforcement of Constitution’s Elections Clause  appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.