Michigan Attorney General: GOP limits on petition drives are unconstitutional

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion on the lame-duck legislation is binding on the Secretary of State, which administers elections, unless it is overturned in court. Rep. Jim Lower, the bill sponsor, said he expects someone will challenge it but that he does not yet know who.  (Bridge photo by Riley Beggin)

June 2019: Michigan Republican lawmakers challenge Nessel opinion on ballot drive law

A Republican-backed lame-duck law that would make state ballot initiatives harder is unconstitutional, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in an opinion Wednesday that found fault with several sections of the law.

Unless overturned in court, Nessel’s opinion is considered binding on state agencies, such as the Secretary of State’s office, which oversees state ballot issues.

Dec. 28, 2018: Gov. Snyder signs bill making ballot initiatives more difficult
Dec. 13, 2018: Michigan House passes bill putting new requirements on ballot initiatives

Most notably, the Republican law says that petitioners can only gather up to 15 percent of their signatures in any one congressional district — a provision Nessel, a Democrat, said is unconstitutional “because it creates an obstacle for voters without any support in the Constitution itself.”

“The Michigan Constitution gives Michiganders the right to support change in the law, and while the Legislature can write laws to implement the process, the Legislature cannot cut voters out of the process,” Nessel said in a statement.

Nessel’s opinion will affect citizen initiatives aiming for the November 2020 ballot — that is, if it’s not litigated first. Ballot committees already face tougher hurdles to success because they will need to gather thousands more signatures than they did in 2018 due to a formula that considers higher turnout in last year’s general election.

Republicans passed the ballot drive restrictions in December, shortly after the 2018 election in which Michigan voters approved three ballot initiatives favored by Democrats (Rep. Jim Lower, R-Greenville, the law’s sponsor, said it wasn’t inspired by the 2018 initiatives.) Former Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed it into law on his last day in office.

Republicans who supported the lame-duck law argued it would increase transparency in the ballot initiative process and ensure support for statewide initiatives comes from around the state, rather than just highly populated areas. Democrats argued that the 15 percent cap in any one congressional district would unduly restrict voters’ ability to use the ballot initiative process.

The partisan divide aligns with Michigan’s geographic divide ‒ Democrats tend to cluster in counties with heavily populated metro areas, while Republicans draw strength from the state’s less populated rural counties.

Lower said Nessel’s opinion “felt like a lot of grasping at straws.”

Nessel’s conclusion on the 15-percent signature threshold is “ridiculous,” Lower said, “because the Constitution says the Legislature has the authority to implement statute, to implement that section as it relates to petitions, and that’s all this was.”

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, also a Democrat, asked Nessel for an opinion on the law in January, saying she was “deeply concerned” about the law’s constitutionality. She said in a statement Wednesday that she’s “grateful” to Nessel “for clarifying the constitutional infirmities” of the law.

“We will carefully review her opinion and update our guidance to potential petition sponsors, circulators and voters accordingly,” she said.

Michigan courts have held that state Attorney General opinions are binding on state agencies unless overturned by the courts, which raises the prospect of a lawsuit challenging her findings.

“The Secretary of State is bound by that Attorney General opinion until a court says otherwise, or at some time a different Attorney General might see it a different way,” said Eric Lupher, president of the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan.

As the state’s legal counsel, Lupher said, “the Attorney General is interpreting the laws and giving advice on the constitutionality of them, but it is advice. The state is bound to follow that advice.”

Lower said he expects someone to mount a legal challenge, but said he doesn’t yet know who that might be.

Nessel’s opinion concluded two other provisions of the lame-duck law are also unconstitutional: A requirement that Benson’s office create petition forms based on congressional districts (rather than by county, as the current forms do) and a requirement that petition circulators file an affidavit stating whether they’re being paid or volunteering.

“Singling out paid circulators with a separate procedural hurdle, and requiring ‘check boxes’ that could lead to circulator harassment, are all new requirements that fail to withstand constitutional concerns aimed at preserving free-speech rights,” Nessel said.

Lower argued the petition forms provision “actually streamlined the process” by reducing the number of forms necessary (14 instead of 83). Over the last two decades, ballot initiatives have been increasingly funded by wealthy donors outside Michigan, he said, and it’s important the public know whether petitioners are being paid for their work.

“Just like every law, I think they need to be updated over time,” Lower said. “I think voters should know: Is this being funded by out-of-state millionaires and billionaires?”

Michigan Republican Party Chairman Laura Cox said in a statement Wednesday that Nessel “decided to throw out a law she doesn’t support on purely partisan grounds.”

“The job of the Michigan Attorney General is to enforce Michigan’s laws, not create them,” Cox said. “Dana Nessel has established a dangerous precedent which undermines the elected representatives of our state, and gives the Attorney General’s office almost unlimited power.”

Two groups have already formed ballot committees for the 2020 election cycle: Right to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Heartbeat Coalition. Both would place added restrictions on abortions in Michigan. Right to Life of Michigan spokesman Chris Gast said the law wouldn’t affect the group’s petition drive either way because it already collects signatures statewide.

Related: Michigan abortion foes can call procedure ‘dismemberment’ on ballot petitions

“We planned to work under the current law, which is a more difficult, more restrictive law,” said Corey Shankleton, president of the Michigan Heartbeat Coalition. “So if it reverts back to the original law that actually makes our job that much more easier.”

MI Time to Care, the group behind last year’s paid sick leave ballot initiative, has also said it’s open to trying to make the ballot again in 2020 after GOP lawmakers watered down the committee’s original ballot language in an effort to address concerns in the state’s business community that the initiatives would harm companies.

The group will determine whether to mount another ballot campaign after the Michigan Supreme Court decides whether it will weigh in on the constitutionality of the Republican-passed changes to the sick leave and minimum wage proposals. The state’s high court will hear arguments in July as it determines whether to issue an advisory opinion in the matter.

The Republican lame-duck ballot law “was a direct strike at democracy,” said Danielle Atkinson, one of the organizers of the MI Time to Care committee, on Wednesday. “I appreciate the Attorney General (for) her opinion about that being unconstitutional. We believe that the ballot initiative process is very important to democracy, and it should be kept accessible to voters.”

Nessel maintains in her opinion that other portions of the new law can be enforced under the constitution. That includes a provision that would invalidate the signatures on a petition sheet if any false information is later found on the sheet, and another that would allow groups to get final approval from the Board of State Canvassers for petition summary language before gathering signatures.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Jim C
Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:38am

Yes, don't require it to be a statewide initiative. Just run around SE Mich gathering signatures so that they can set the agenda for the whole state. This is just another Dem manuvuer to control the state from the far corner.

John Q. Public
Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:40pm

If that's where the people live, that's where you get the signatures. Legislative bodies don't get to dilute the value of citizens' votes based on how densely or sparsely populated certain areas of a jurisdiction are. That legal precedent in this country is more than fifty years old.

You could see this decision coming since last December, and the courts will uphold it if they adhere to stare decisis.

Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:08am

Ah yes, more legislating from the bench, or in this case, legislating from someone's personal opinion.

Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:16am

In the first paragraph it says "her opinion" last I knew, her opinion does not get to make law. Her and the Governor together is dangerous.

John Q. Public
Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:34pm

When's the last time you looked at the power of an AG opinion? It isn't "law", but it generally has the force of law over state agents until a court weighs in differently.

Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:34am

This seems to fit inline with the Supreme Court throwing out the weighted-land population apportionment that was in our state's constitution. A vote in one particular geographic location is equal to a vote in any other geographic location. My guess is that even if the Republicans challenge it, the courts will reaffirm it.
There's no Electoral College-type approach which would disproportionately benefit the rural vote (or signature as in this case.) I'm glad to see the AG rule as she did.

Thu, 05/23/2019 - 2:57pm

One more example of the absurdity of the Mi constitution in allowing this behavior. A partisan elected official is able to sidetrack actions of opposing elected branch just by inventing that their actions are in her mind are somehow "unconstitutional". Where does this end? The humorous thing is that she took how may weeks to unveil her decision as if she had to deliberate longer than 4 seconds! Maybe AG Bill Barr should start declaring the House of Rep actions unconstitutional?

Michael W.
Sun, 05/26/2019 - 10:18am

But you're fine with partisan legislators trying to dilute the power of citizens to bring ballot initiatives after a group of those initiatives just went badly for them. Totally legit.

Kevin Grand
Fri, 05/24/2019 - 5:58am

One important issue that the author of this piece has overlooked, is the fact that AG Nessel's opinion essentially removes any leverage Gov. Whitmer HAD in relation to the auto insurance bills being voted on (again) in the Michigan Legislature.

With Dan Gilbert forming a committee to do what Gov. Whitmer refuses to do, she can either act now, or things will simply get done without her at all.



Fri, 05/24/2019 - 6:10am

Sour grapes.. It was a lame duck partisan power grab in the first place. The AG's opinion is correct.

Fri, 05/24/2019 - 9:45am

But is the partisan AG the one to make this call? This is a precedent you won't like,

Mrs A
Tue, 05/28/2019 - 1:11pm

I keep seeing this opinion expressed as fact: "Democrats tend to cluster in counties with heavily populated metro areas, while Republicans draw strength from the state’s less populated rural counties. " No, Democrats do NOT "cluster" in heavily populated areas: the reality of living in close proximity to people with a wide variety of colors, genders, religions, national origins, professional aspirations, educational levels, musical tastes, even food choices challenges Michiganders to grow and appreciate, even demand, the tolerance and equality supported by Democratic politics. Might as well state that Republicans as parochial bigots "tend to isolate" in sparsely-populated upstate counties.

That said, every Michigan voter's petition signature should count equally, regardless of the county they live in.