LANSING, MI -- One of former Gov. Rick Snyder’s final decisions in office continues to reverberate in Michigan courts.
The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 11, listened to arguments over the constitutionality of a 2018 lame-duck law that makes voter-led ballot initiatives more difficult. Snyder signed the law during his last day in office and it was challenged in a lawsuit filed last year by League of Women Voters, as well as other plaintiffs, including Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections, against the Michigan Legislature and Michigan Secretary of State.
While attorneys for the Republican-led House and Senate argue the requirements provide greater transparency and a ensure a broader range of voter input to the ballot initiative signature collection process, the League of Women Voters and other plaintiffs argue the law disenfranchises voters.
The parts of the law at the center of the legal controversy are a requirement that no more than 15% of initiative petition signatures come from a single of Michigan’s 14 congressional districts and a mandate that petition signature sheets include a checkbox indicating whether the signature collector is paid or a volunteer.
The Michigan Court of Appeals in January upheld a September 2019 Michigan Court of Claims ruling deeming those provisions unconstitutional, and further, ruling that the state Legislature doesn’t have the right to challenge the constitutionality in court.
“No one is being rendered meaningless (under new rules) any more than they are in the current system ... ,” Attorney John Bursch told the state Supreme Court while arguing on behalf of the House and Senate Monday. “But what this does is it promotes broad laws, not narrow; it promotes geographic diversity and it promotes speech, and all of those are a legitimate interest for the Legislature.
" ... It’s not making it harder. It’s just requiring you to go talk to different people in different places and so everything isn’t situated in one place."
Regarding the checkbox requirement, Bursch said it may make a difference to voters during the petition signature collection phase, as well as at the polls to know if the effort is being led by a grassroots volunteer organization or a potentially well-funded one.
“If they see that that box is checked and that the person is being paid, then that gives them an opportunity to ask more questions ... Bursch said. " ... And maybe that makes a difference to some people, maybe it doesn’t, but just like the court rule. More information, rather than less information on this topic, is a good thing."
Bursch said six other states have a similar requirement, including Oregon, where paid signature collectors must use a distinct color of paper for signature collection.
Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast argued against the Michigan Legislature’s position on behalf of Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and said new ballot initiative requirements exceed the Legislature’s authority.
Both “violate the free speech clauses of the state and federal constitutions,” she said. " ... And the checkbox requirement exposes circulators to potential harassment in the heat of the moment at the very time they are collecting a signature from a voter, and it does so without any substantial interest from the state and the cirulators personal interest as paid or unpaid."
Supreme Court Justice Brian K. Zahra challenged Meingast on whether questioning a paid petition circulator about their motivations would constitute harassment or is simply the exercising of free speech.
Mark Brewer, an attorney with the Goodman Acker law firm who argued on behalf of the League of Women Voters, called the 15% signature limitation confusing.
“We change congressional districts every 10 (years) ... and the shift constantly" he said. " ... Voters do not know what congressional district they are in ... so there’s an enormous burden ow being added to circulators and to signers to try and figure out what congressional district am I in what petition can I sign."
Secretary of State Benson sought AG Nessel’s opinion on the constitutionality of the law last year. Nessel determined several parts of the law, including the cap on valid signatures from each congressional district, to be unconstitutional.
The Michigan Supreme Court has taken the oral arguments under advisement and is expected to issue its ruling at a later date.
More on MLive:
Judge removes ‘unconstitutional’ ballot petition rules passed in lame-duck
Michigan House, Senate sue to challenge Nessel opinion