DOCSLIB.ORG

Presidential Politics in Michigan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presidential Politics in Michigan Presidential Politics in Michigan Dr. Lyke Thompson, Dr. Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson, and Jason Hardacre Wayne State University Fall 2004 1 Model of the major influences that decide the winner of the Presidential election in Michigan History Economic Climate R epositioning of Political Parties Legal Context Presidential Election Ground Campaign Turnout M oney Media C urrent Events 2 History of Michigan Presidential Elections 3 Share of popular vote among political parties in Michigan, 1892-2000 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Percentage of Vote 20% 10% 0% 1892 Note: In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran as a member of the Bull Moose Party and won a majority of the Michigan popular vote. He r Republican in 1904. 1896 Source: www.uselectionatlas.org 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 Year 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 Democrats1992 Republicans1996 Others 2000 an as a 4 1988 U.S. Presidential Election Results Michigan George H. W. Bush (R) Michael S. Dukakis (D) Vote Tally Candidate Number of Votes Percentage of Total Vote George H. W. Bush (R) 1,965,486 53.57% Michael S. Dukakis (D) 1,675,783 45.67% Others 27,894 0.76% Total 3,669,163 100.00% Note: The darker the shade of the color, the larger the percentage of the vote the candidate received. 5 Graphic courtesy of www.uselectionatlas.org 1992 U.S. Presidential Election Results Michigan George H. W. Bush (R) William J. Clinton (D) Vote Tally Candidate Number of Votes Percentage of Total Vote George H. W. Bush (R) 1,554,940 36.38% William J. Clinton (D) 1,871,182 43.77% H. Ross Perot (I) 824,813 19.30% Others 23,738 0.55% Total 4,274,673 100.00% Note: The darker the shade of the color, the larger the percentage of the vote the candidate received. 6 Graphic courtesy of www.uselectionatlas.org 1996 U.S. Presidential Election Results Michigan William J. Clinton (D) Robert J. Dole (R) Vote Tally Candidate Number of Votes Percentage of Total Vote William J. Clinton (D) 1,989,653 51.69% Robert J. Dole (R) 1,481,212 38.48% H. Ross Perot (RF) 336,670 8.75% Others 41,309 1.08% Total 3,848,844 100.00% Note: The darker the shade of the color, the larger the percentage of the vote the candidate received. 7 Graphic courtesy of www.uselectionatlas.org 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results Michigan Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D) George W. Bush (R) Vote Tally Candidate Number of Votes Percentage of Total Vote Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D) 2,170,418 51.28% George W. Bush (R) 1,953,139 46.14% Others 109,154 2.58% Total 4,232,711 100.00% Note: The darker the shade of the color, the larger the percentage of the vote the candidate received. 8 Graphic courtesy of www.uselectionatlas.org Economic Climate of Michigan 9 Total Non-farm Employees in Michigan, January 2001 – September 2004 4,650 4,600 4,550 4,500 Number (in thousands)4,450 4,400 4,350 4,300 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsJanuary-2001 April-2001 July-2001 October-2001 January-2002 April-2002 July-2002 October-2002 January-2003 April-2003 Month-Year July-2003 October-2003 January-2004 April-2004 July-2004 10 Unemployment Rate in Michigan, by County 11 Source: Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth Unemployment Rate, Michigan v. National 8.0% 7.5% January 2001 to September 2004 7.0% 6.5% Percentage 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% January-2000 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics July-2000 January-2001 July-2001 January-2002 July-2002 January-2003 Time July-2003 January-2004 Michigan National July-2004 12 Unemployed Citizens in Michigan, Average Number of Weeks, January 2001 – August 2004 20 18 16 14 12 Average Number of Weeks of Average Number 10 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Month/Year Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 13 Repositioning of Political Parties in Michigan 14 • Up to the early 1980s, the political parties, including the Republicans, had conservative, moderate, and liberal factions. • With the election of John Engler, a conservative Republican, in 1990 the Michigan Republican Party moved further and further to the right. The Democrats did move somewhat to the right, but not as much. • Therefore, Al Gore, a Democrat, won the Republican stronghold of Oakland County because its citizens did not necessarily shift with the Republican Party. • In addition, Jennifer Granholm defeated Dick Posthumus for the Governor’s race in 2002. 15 Ground Campaign in Michigan and Turnout 16 Number of Registered Voters in Michigan, 2000, 2002, 2004 7,100,000 7,050,000 7,000,000 6,950,000 6,900,000 6,850,000 Number 6,800,000 6,750,000 6,700,000 6,650,000 2000(a) 2002(b) 2004(c) Year Notes: (a) Data from October, 10, 2000; (b) Data from October 07, 2002; (c) Data from September 24, 2002 as cited in the Detroit Free Press. 17 Source: Michigan Department of State Voter Registration and Election Turnout Statistics for Michigan General Elections for President, 1948-2000 Voting Age Year Number Voting Number Registered Population (VAP) Turnout (% of VAP) 1948 2,109,609 Not Available 4,041,000 52.2% 1952 2,798,592 Not Available 4,193,000 66.7% 1956 3,080,468 3,128,573 4,538,000 67.9% 1960 3,318,097 3,454,804 4,564,000 72.7% 1964 3,203,102 3,351,730 4,658,000 68.8% 1968 3,306,250 4,022,378 4,953,000 66.8% 1972 3,490,325 4,762,764a 5,874,000b 59.4% 1976 3,722,384 5,202,379c 6,268,000 59.4% 1980 3,978,647 5,725,713 6,510,000 61.1% 1984 3,884,854 5,888,808 6,577,000 59.1% 1988 3,745,751 5,952,513 6,791,000 55.2% 1992 4,341,909 6,147,083 6,947,000 62.5% 1996 3,912,261 6,677,079d 7,072,000 55.3% 2000 4,279,299 6,859,332 7,358,000 58.2% a"The large increase in the number of registered voters in the state from 1970 to 1972 was the result of a March 1972 Michigan Supreme Court ruling which declared that it was unconstitutional to purge the registration of a voter who had not voted over a period of two years as Michigan law then required. In effect, this compelled clerks to reinstate the registrations of 'non-voters' who had been purged from the registration since 1968." b"The large increase in the state's voting age population from 1970 to 1972 was the result of the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18." c"Two events occurred in 1975 which affected the 1976 registration total: (1) the Secretary of State Branch Officer Voter Registration program was put into effect in October and (2) provisions allowing for the creation of 'inactive' voter registration files were put into effect. Registration totals listed for 1976 to 1984 reflect only those registrations held in 4-year 'active' files." d"The National Voter Registration Act, effective January 1, 1995, eliminated the initiation of any voter registration cancellations for inactivity and introduced several new voter registration programs in the state, including mail-in registration." Source: Michigan Manual, 1948-2000 18 Voter Turnout for Presidential 75% (As a Percentage of Voter Age Population) 70% 65% 60% 55% Percentage 50% Elections in Michigan, 1948-2000 45% 40% Source: Michigan Manual, 2001-20021948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 Year 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 19 Voter Turnout in Wayne County, 2000 General Election 20 Voter Turnout in Detroit, 2000 General Election 21 Money / Campaign Finances 22 2004 Michigan Campaign Finance Report, Broadcast Television, By Region Media Market Candidate/Campaign Detroit Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo Lansing Flint/Tri-Cities Northern Michigan Total Bush/Cheney 2004 $5,512,200 $3,153,820 $2,054,000 $1,614,400 $1,817,002 $14,151,422 Pro-Bush 527s* Not Available $279,365 $67,725 $57,730 $150,455 $555,275 Total - Bush/allies $5,512,200 $3,433,185 $2,121,725 $1,672,130 $1,967,457 $14,706,697 Kerry/Edwards 2004 $6,597,000 $3,456,205 $2,480,075 $2,038,335 $1,704,794 $16,276,409 Pro-Kerry 527s* $1,472,995 $478,480 $420,000 $357,610 $157,060 $2,886,145 Total - Kerry/allies $8,069,995 $3,934,685 $2,900,075 $2,395,945 $1,861,854 $19,162,554 Total - All $13,582,195 $7,367,870 $5,021,800 $4,068,075 $3,829,311 $33,869,251 *527s are advocacy groups. Note: Through October 25, 2004. Cable television not included. Source: Michigan Campaign Finance Network 23 Media • Bias in coverage – Sinclair Broadcasting – Errors—CBS • Endorsements •Ad Wars 24 Current Events 25 Wild Card Possibilities • Debates • Changes in the Iraq Situation •Osama – Capture – Attacks • Employment and Unemployment Numbers • Gaffes and Leaks • Catastrophes • Oil price or Stock Market changes • Defections by Prominent Party Members • Media 26 The Current Outlook The Horse Race 27 Likely voters’ Bush (R) 60% 50% choice for President in Michigan - 2004 40% Percentage30% 20% Kerry (D) 10% 0% 08/13 - 08/16(b) Sources: (a) Mason-Dixon Polling and Resear Perry and Associates for America Coming To Nader (I) (f) EPIC/MRA 08/17 - 08/19(d) 08/26 - 08/28(b) 08/26 - 08/29(c) 09/12 - 09/14(b) 09/14 - 09/16(a) Undecided 09/26 - 09/28(b) ch for Knight Ridde gether (D); (d) American Research Gro Dates 10/12of polls (2004)- 10/14(b) 10/15 - 10/18(a) r and MSNBC; (b) Strategic10/18 Vision - (R);10/19(e (c) Lake Snell) 10/18 - 10/20(b) 10/19 - 10/21(e) up Poll; (e) Detroit News/Mitchell Poll; 10/18 - 10/22(f) 10/24 - 10/26(b) 10/26 - 10/29(a) 28 Likely voters’ choice for President, National v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
    2:16-cv-13924-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 11/04/16 Pg 1 of 41 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Hon. Plaintiff, Case No. ____________ v. MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY, DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., ROGER J. STONE, JR., and STOP THE STEAL INC., Defendants. VOTER INTIMIDATION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AND THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871 FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff Michigan Democratic Party hereby alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”), Trump’s close advisor Roger J. Stone, Jr., Stone’s organization Stop the Steal Inc., the Michigan Republican Party (“MRP”), and others are conspiring to threaten, intimidate, and thereby prevent minority voters in urban neighborhoods from voting in the 2016 election. The presently stated goal of the Trump Campaign, as explained by an unnamed official to Bloomberg News on October 27, 2016, is to 1 2:16-cv-13924-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 11/04/16 Pg 2 of 41 Pg ID 2 depress voter turnout—in the official’s words: “We have three major voter suppression operations under way” that target African Americans and other groups of voters. It has also become clear in recent weeks that Trump has sought to advance his campaign’s goal of “voter suppression” by using the loudest microphone in the nation to implore his supporters to engage in unlawful intimidation at Michigan polling places. Trump’s exhortations have been amplified by direct and tacit assistance from the MRP and Stone, who helped pioneer similar tactics in the 1980s before those efforts were blocked by the federal courts.
    [Show full text]
  • I RESPONSE APPENDIX TABLE of CONTENTS
    i RESPONSE APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Michigan Court of Claims Trump v. Benson Case No. 20-225-MM Verified Complaint Filed: November 4, 2020 ................................... 1a–12a Michigan Court of Claims Trump v. Benson Case No. 20-225-MM Opinion and Order Filed: November 6, 2020 ................................. 13a–18a Wayne County Circuit Court Costantino v. Detroit Case No. 20-14780-AW Complaint Filed: November 8, 2020 ................................. 19a–45a Wayne County Circuit Court Costantino v. Detroit Case No. 20-14780-AW Affidavit of Christopher Thomas Filed: November 11, 2020 ............................... 46a–59a Wayne County Circuit Court Costantino v. Detroit Case No. 20-14780-AW Affidavit of Opinion & Order Filed: November 13, 2020 ............................... 60a–74a ii Wayne County Circuit Court Stoddard v. Winfrey Case No. 20-14604-CZ Opinion & Order Filed: November 6, 2020 ................................. 75a–81a Michigan Supreme Court Johnson v. Benson Petition November 26, 2020 ....................................... 82a–153a Michigan Court of Claims Cooper-Keel, J.D. v. Benson; Case No. 20-91-MM Black v. Benson, Case No. 20-96-MZ Opinion and Order Denying Preliminary Injunction Issued June 18, 2020 .................................. 154a–162a Michigan Court of Claims Cooper-Keel, J.D. v. Benson; Case No. 20-91-MM Black v. Benson, Case No. 20-96-MZ Davis v. Benson, Case No. 20-99-MM Opinion and Order Granting Summary Disposition Issued August 25, 2020............................... 163a–175a Michigan Court of Claims Election Integrity Fund v. Benson Case No. 20-169-MM Verified Complaint Filed August 24, 2020 ................................. 176a–206a iii Michigan Court of Claims Election Integrity Fund v. Benson Case No. 20-169-MM Declaration and Verification of Jonathan Brater Dated: October 9, 2020 ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Michigan Notice of Supplemental Authority
    CASE NO. 20-815 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES In Re: IN RE: TIMOTHY KING, MARIAN ELLEN SHERIDAN, JOHN EARL HAGGARD, CHARLES JAMES RITCHARD, JAMES DAVID HOOPER and DAREN WADE RUBINGH, Petitioners, v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State and the Michigan BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, Respondent. PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY SIDNEY POWELL Counsel of Record Texas Bar No. 16209700 Sidney Powell, P.C. 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75219 (517) 763-7499 [email protected] Of Counsel JULIA Z. HALLER BRANDON JOHNSON EMILY P. NEWMAN Howard Kleinhendler HOWARD KLEINHENDLER New York Bar No. 2657120 Howard Kleinhendler Esquire 369 Lexington Avenue, 12th Floor New York, New York 10017 (917) 793-1188 [email protected] L. LIN WOOD Georgia Bar No. 774588 L. LIN WOOD, P.C. P.O. Box 52584 Atlanta, GA 30305-0584 (404) 891-1402 STEFANIE LAMBERT JUNTTILA 500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340. Detroit, Michigan 48301 (248) 270-6689 [email protected] SCOTT HAGERSTROM 222 West Genesee Lansing, Michigan 48933 GREGORY J. ROHL 41850 West 11 Mile Road, Suite 110 Novi, Michigan 48375 ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT There are no corporations involved in this case. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... v Facts ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan's Recall Election
    CitizensCitizens ResearResearchch CCouncilouncil ofof MichiganMichigan Michigan’sMichigan’s RecRecallall ElecElectiontion LLaaww JuneJune 20122012 RepReporortt 379379 CELEBRATING 96 YEARS OF INDEPENDENT, NONPARTISAN PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN Board of Directors Chair Vice Chair Treasurer Jeffrey D. Bergeron Terence M. Donnelly Aleksandra A. Miziolek Jeffrey D. Bergeron John J. Gasparovic Cathy Nash Ernst & Young LLP BorgWarner Inc. Citizens Bank Michael G. Bickers Ingrid A. Gregg Paul R. Obermeyer PNC Financial Services Group Earhart Foundation Comerica Bank Beth Chappell Marybeth S. Howe Brian Peters Detroit Economic Club Wells Fargo Bank Michigan Health & Hospital Association Mark A. Davidoff Nick A. Khouri Kevin Prokop Deloitte LLP DTE Energy Company Rockbridge Growth Equity, LLC Terence M. Donnelly Daniel T. Lis Lynda Rossi Dickinson Wright PLLC Kelly Services, Inc. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Randall W. Eberts Sarah L. McClelland Jerry E. Rush W. E. Upjohn Institute JPMorgan Chase & Co. Meritor, Inc. David O. Egner Michael P. McGee Michael A. Semanco Hudson-Webber Foundation Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Hennessey Capital LLC New Economy Initiative Stone PLC Terence A. Thomas, Sr. Laura Fournier Aleksandra A. Miziolek Thomas Group Consulting, Inc. Compuware Dykema Gossett PLLC Kent J. Vana Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Jim Murray Varnum Manoogian Foundation AT&T Michigan Theodore J. Vogel CMS Energy Corporation Advisory Director Louis Betanzos Board of Trustees Chair Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Terence E. Adderley Ralph J. Gerson Sarah L. McClelland Irving Rose Kelly Services, Inc. Guardian Industries Corporation JPMorgan Chase & Co. Edward Rose & Sons Jeffrey D. Bergeron Eric R. Gilbertson Paul W. McCracken George E. Ross Ernst & Young LLP Saginaw Valley State University University of Michigan, Emeritus Central Michigan University Stephanie W.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:17-Cv-14148-ELC-DPH-GJQ ECF No. 268 Filed 04/25/19 Pageid.11559 Page 1 of 146
    Case 2:17-cv-14148-ELC-DPH-GJQ ECF No. 268 filed 04/25/19 PageID.11559 Page 1 of 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ) OF MICHIGAN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 2:17-cv-14148 ) JOCELYN BENSON, in her official ) OPINION AND ORDER capacity as Michigan Secretary of ) State, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ___________________________________ ) BEFORE: CLAY, Circuit Judge; HOOD and QUIST, District Judges. CLAY, Circuit Judge. The League of Women Voters of Michigan (“League”), numerous League members (“League Plaintiffs”), and several Democratic voters (“Individual Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan Secretary of State in her official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging that Michigan’s current legislative apportionment plan (the “Enacted Plan”), which the state legislature implemented as Michigan Public Acts 128 and 129 of 2011, violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights and First Amendment free speech and association rights by deliberately discriminating against Democratic voters.1 (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) After Plaintiffs filed suit, several parties moved to intervene. Ultimately, intervention was granted to several of the Republican members of Michigan’s United States congressional delegation and two Republican state house members (together “Congressional and State House 1 When referring to the League, League Plaintiffs, and Individual Plaintiffs together, the Court uses the term “Plaintiffs.” When referring only to the League Plaintiffs and the Individual Plaintiffs, separate from the League as an organization, the Court uses the term “Voters.” -1- Case 2:17-cv-14148-ELC-DPH-GJQ ECF No. 268 filed 04/25/19 PageID.11560 Page 2 of 146 Intervenors”) (see ECF Nos.
    [Show full text]
  • The College Democrats at the University of Michigan V. Johnson
    Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.104 Page 1 of 79 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, THE Case No. 3:18-cv-12722-RHC- COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT SDD NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, AND THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF COLLEGE DEMOCRATS, Honorable Robert H. Cleland Plaintiffs, v. RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Michigan Secretary of State, and SALLY WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, and THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF COLLEGE DEMOCRATS, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for DECLARATORY and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Defendant RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Michigan Secretary of State (the “Secretary”), and Defendant SALLY WILLIAMS, in her 1 Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.105 Page 2 of 79 official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, and allege as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. As this Court recently observed, “Michigan has one of the most restrictive voting regimes in the country.” Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, No. 16-cv-11844, 2018 WL 3769326 at *7 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2018) (“Michigan State A.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Votes Without Identification? Using Affidavits from Michigan To
    Who Votes Without Identification? Using Affidavits from Michigan to Learn About the Potential Impact of Strict Photo Voter Identification Laws∗ Phoebe Henninger Marc Meredith Michael Morse University of Michigan University of Pennsylvania Harvard University & Yale Law School [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] July 13, 2018 Abstract It is still unknown how many citizens are prevented from voting by strict photo voter identification (ID) laws. This is in part because there is no administrative record of who is turned away from a polling place or, anticipating as much, never shows up at all. We solve this measurement problem by studying Michigan's non-strict photo voter ID law. Michigan voters are asked to present photo ID but, in contrast to strict states, are allowed to vote without photo ID after signing an affidavit. Collecting and coding the affidavits filed in the 2016 presidential election in a random sample of precincts allows us to observe those voters who both desired to vote and lacked the ID that would be necessary to vote in a strict ID state. We find a strict photo ID law would have a disparate racial impact, but on a small effect size. About 0.6 percent, or 28,000 voters, lacked photo identification. Imputing race based on surname and place of residence, we find that non-white voters are between 2.5 and 6 times more likely than white voters to lack photo ID Prepared for the 2018 Election Sciences, Reform, and Administration Conference The most recent version of the paper is available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3205769 ∗We thank the many clerks in Michigan that assisted us in collecting data on affidavits, and Stephen Damianos, Nikola Damjanovic, Ketaki Gujar, Katherine Hsu, Theodore Kotler, Charlotte Laracy, and Eric Selzer for their research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief
    STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ROBERT DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 20-000099-MM JOCELYN BENSON, Hon. CYNTHIA STEPHENS in her official capacity as the duly elected SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendant. Robert Davis MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND Plaintiff In Pro Per STONE, PLC 180 Eason Larry J. Saylor (P28165) Highland Park, Michigan 48203 Sonal Hope Mithani (P51984) (313) 523-7118 Wendolyn Wrosch Richards (P67776) [email protected] Scott R. Eldridge (P66452) 101 N. Main Street, 7th Floor Erik A. Grill (P64713) Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Heather S. Meingast (P55439) (734) 663-2445 Assistant Attorneys General [email protected] PO Box 30736 [email protected] Lansing, Michigan 48909 [email protected] (517) 294-1837 [email protected] (517) 335-7659 [email protected] OF COUNSEL: [email protected] THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE Attorneys for Defendant Myrna Pérez (NY Bar No. 4874095)* Eliza Sweren-Becker (NY Bar No. 5424403)* Elisa Miller (NY Bar No. 4280061)* 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 (646) 292-8329 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] *Not admitted to practice in Michigan Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curiae The Brennan Center for Justice [6/16/2020] THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE DESCRIPTION OF AMICUS CURIAE AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST1 Amicus Curiae the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (“the Brennan Center”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy and law institute that seeks to improve systems of democracy and justice.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Report to the Permanent Council1 Oas Electoral
    REPORT TO THE PERMANENT COUNCIL1 OAS ELECTORAL OBSERVATION MISSION United States of America General Election held on November 8, 2016 January 17, 2017 Background On June 30, 2016, the Government of the United States of America invited the Organization of American States (OAS) to observe the General Elections to be held on November 8, 2016. On July 11, 2016, the OAS Secretary General accepted the invitation and appointed former President of Costa Rica, Laura Chinchilla, as Chief of Mission. This was the first-ever OAS Electoral Observation Mission in the United States of America, and brings to 27 the number of Member States that have received an OAS Electoral Observation Mission (OAS/EOM). On November 8, 2016, U.S. citizens voted to elect the president and vice president, 34 senators, and 435 members of the House of Representatives. In addition, the U.S. electorate voted to fill 93 state executive offices2 across 22 states, as well as a number of state legislators, city mayors, judges, other local officials and ballot measures3. The OAS/EOM, comprised of 41 experts and observers from 18 different countries, was deployed one week prior to Election Day. Because of the decentralized nature of the U.S. electoral system, the Mission coordinated with individual states in order to observe their voting processes. On Election Day, the EOM was present in the following states: California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia. Some states4 do not allow or lack specific provisions for regulating international observation.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:20-Cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 36, Pageid.2486 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 34
    Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 36, PageID.2486 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN TIMOTHY KING, MARIAN ELLEN SHERIDAN, JOHN EARL HAGGARD, CHARLES JAMES RITCHARD, JAMES DAVID HOOPER, and DAREN WADE RUBINGH, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:20-CV-13134 v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official Hon. Linda V. Parker capacity as Governor of Michigan, JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, and MICHIGAN BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS. Defendants. and DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE and MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Intervenor-Defendants. INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 36, PageID.2487 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 34 STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED I. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Intervenor-Defendants’ Answer: No. II. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief. Intervenor-Defendants’ Answer: No. i Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 36, PageID.2488 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 34 CONTROLLING AND APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442 (2007) Bognet v. Sec’y of Commonwealth, No. 20-3214, 2020 WL 6686120 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2020) CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 639 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Mich. 2009) Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, No. 4:20-CV-02078, 2020 WL 6821992 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2020) Costantino v. City of Detroit, No. 20-014780-AW (Mich. Cir. Ct. Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute V. Johnson
    2:16-cv-11844-GAD-MKM Doc # 56 Filed 01/26/17 Pg 1 of 33 Pg ID 1092 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHIGAN STATE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, COMMON CAUSE, MARY LANSDOWN, ERIN COMARTIN, and DION WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, No. 2:16-cv-11844 Hon. Gershwin Drain v. RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, Defendant. _________________________________________/ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NOW COME Plaintiffs Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute, Common Cause, Mary Lansdown, Erin Comartin and Dion Williams (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Goodman Acker, P.C. and Sachs Waldman, P.C., and for their Second Amended Complaint pursuant to FRCP 15(a)(2)(A) for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Ruth Johnson, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, state as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, to secure declaratory and injunctive relief for 1 2:16-cv-11844-GAD-MKM Doc # 56 Filed 01/26/17 Pg 2 of 33 Pg ID 1093 the unlawful deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Plaintiff citizens and voters of Michigan will be harmed by the discriminatory and burdensome provisions of Michigan’s 2015 Public Act 268 (Exhibit 1) which eliminated the ability of Michigan voters to cast a straight party vote if they so chose, an option which they had enjoyed for 125 years and which at least half of them had used in recent elections.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Michigan Statewide Voter
    MICHIGAN STATEWIDE VOTER SURVEY 600 SAMPLE – REGISTERED VOTERS MAY 30, 2021 Michigan Statewide Voter Survey 1 Glengariff Group, Inc. May 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Topic 2 Methodology 3 Key Findings 18 Aggregate Survey Results 34 Cross-tabulation Report 65 Appendix A: Question 11 67 Appendix B. Question 11 71 Appendix C: Question 18 METHODOLOGY The Glengariff Group, Inc. conducted a Michigan statewide survey of registered voters. The 600 sample, live operator telephone survey was conducted on May 22-26, 2021 and has a margin of error of +/-4.0% with a 95% level of confidence. 50.0% of respondents were contacted via landline telephone. 50.0% of respondents were contacted via cell phone telephone. This survey was commissioned by the Detroit Regional Chamber. Michigan Statewide Voter Survey 2 Glengariff Group, Inc. May 2021 KEY FINDINGS Lay of the Land * By a margin of 35.3%-48.2%, Michigan voters believe the nation continues to be on the wrong track. While the ‘right track’ number is statistically consistent with February 2021, the ‘wrong track’ number has increased by seven points. Survey Right Wrong No Opinion October 2020 27.4% 55.9% 16.7% February 2021 36.6% 40.6% 22.9% May 2021 35.3% 48.2% 16.5% * The national right track/wrong track continues to be driven by a sharp partisan divide. But Independent voters continue to believe the nation is on the wrong track by a margin of 28.9%-48.8%. Party Affiliation Right Wrong Strong Democratic 69.9% 15.0% Lean Democratic 54.0% 17.5% Independent 28.9% 48.8% Lean Republican 10.8% 75.4% Strong Republican 4.6% 86.8% * By a margin of 40.4% right track to 45.2% wrong track, Michigan voters believe the state is narrowly on the wrong track.
    [Show full text]