US Supreme Court: Michigan Citizenship Ballot Refusal Upheld

• The US Supreme Court refused an emergency request to place a Michigan proof-of-citizenship amendment on midterm election ballots.
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application without explanation or referring it to the full court.
• Americans for Citizen Voting sought the intervention after the Michigan Board of State Canvassers invalidated their petition due to insufficient valid signatures.
• The Board found only 626 valid signatures from a 1,000-signature sample, far short of the 446,198 required by state law.
• The Supreme Court's decision aligns with its typical practice of not intervening in state ballot disputes before state high courts have ruled.

The US Supreme Court's refusal to grant emergency relief in the Michigan ballot case carries significant implications for ballot access initiatives and the hierarchy of judicial review.

The US Supreme Court has declined to intervene in a Michigan ballot dispute, effectively refusing to mandate the inclusion of a proposed proof-of-citizenship amendment on upcoming midterm election ballots. This decision came after Americans for Citizen Voting (ACVM) sought an emergency injunction from the nation's highest court, aiming to overturn a state board's invalidation of their ballot initiative. The group had appealed directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing a final ruling from Michigan's highest judicial body, citing an urgent deadline for ballot finalization.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of Donald Trump, issued the denial without referring the matter to the full court for consideration. His order provided no explanation for the decision, leaving the Michigan proof-of-citizenship amendment off the ballot for the time being. ACVM had argued that without the Supreme Court's immediate action, Michigan voters would be irreparably harmed by being denied the opportunity to vote on the measure, whereas placing it on the ballot would cause no harm even if their arguments ultimately failed.

The controversy originated with the Michigan Board of State Canvassers' decision to invalidate the proposed amendment, despite Americans for Citizen Voting having gathered a substantial number of signatures. Under Michigan state law, a constitutional amendment requires 446,198 valid signatures to qualify for ballot access. The Board of State Canvassers conducted a review of a random sample of 1,000 submitted signatures, determining that only 626 of them were valid. A separate review by the Michigan Bureau of Elections yielded similar results, finding only 612 valid signatures.

Following this initial rejection, Americans for Citizen Voting appealed the Michigan Board of State Canvassers decision to the Michigan Supreme Court just last week. However, perceiving a delay in action from the state's highest court and facing an imminent deadline for Michigan ballots to be finalized on Friday, the group escalated its plea to the US Supreme Court. ACVM also criticized the Board of State Canvassers for waiting over five months before denying their petition, further alleging that the Michigan Supreme Court was contributing to the delay.

The Michigan Board of State Canvassers strongly urged the Supreme Court to reject Americans for Citizen Voting's application, characterizing it as "highly unusual." The board contended that the nation's highest court should not be the initial judicial body to review the case, especially given the numerous issues it identified with the appeal. They argued that the requested "emergency injunction ballot access" would fundamentally alter the existing status quo, compel specific actions from the respondents, and grant ACVM all the relief they could possibly obtain for their claims, without adequate justification beyond merely reiterating the number of signatures collected and failing to address the high number of invalid signatures.

This stance aligns with the typical practice of the US Supreme Court, which generally refrains from ruling on cases until lower courts have had the opportunity to weigh in. The denial by Justice Kavanaugh, without explanation and without full court referral, underscores a reluctance to intervene in state-level ballot disputes, particularly when state-level judicial remedies have not been fully exhausted. The US Supreme Court Michigan citizenship ballot refusal highlights the high procedural bar for federal intervention in such matters.

The US Supreme Court's refusal to grant emergency relief in the Michigan ballot case carries significant implications for ballot access initiatives and the hierarchy of judicial review. By declining to intervene, the Court reinforced its traditional role of allowing state judicial processes to run their course before federal intervention, especially in matters pertaining to state constitutional amendments. This decision emphasizes that petitioners seeking federal court intervention, particularly through an emergency injunction, must typically demonstrate that all state-level remedies have been exhausted and that extraordinary circumstances warrant immediate federal action.

The outcome serves as a reminder that even when a group like Americans for Citizen Voting believes it faces "irreparable harm" due to a looming deadline, the Supreme Court maintains a high threshold for bypassing established judicial procedures. The denial by Justice Kavanaugh without explanation further illustrates the Court's discretion in these matters and its general hesitancy to disrupt state election processes without a clear and compelling legal basis that has been thoroughly vetted through the state's own court system.

This ruling underscores the US Supreme Court's reluctance to intervene in state ballot initiative disputes, particularly without prior review by the state's highest court. Lawyers advising on ballot access or election law should note the high procedural bar for emergency relief and the importance of exhausting state-level remedies before seeking federal intervention.

Source: Original reporting via press reports.