United States District Court Western District of Michigan Southern Division
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:20-cv-00948-PLM-PJG ECF No. 24 filed 10/13/20 PageID.3266 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RUTH JOHNSON, TERRI LYNN LAND and MARIAN SHERIDAN, Plaintiffs, No. 1:20-cv-00948 v HON. PAUL L. MALONEY JOCELYN BENSON, Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, in her official capacity, Defendant. Todd A. Dawson Heather S. Meingast (P55439) Baker & Hostetler LLP Erik A. Grill (P64713) Attorney for Plaintiffs Assistant Attorneys General Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Attorneys for Defendant Cleveland, Ohio 44114 PO Box 30736 216.621.0200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 [email protected] 517.335.7659 [email protected] David B. Rivkin [email protected] Andrew M. Grossman Richard B. Raile Baker & Hostetler LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1050 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 / DEFENDANT MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE JOCELYN BENSON’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Dana Nessel Attorney General Erik A. Grill (P64713) Heather S. Meingast (P55439) Case 1:20-cv-00948-PLM-PJG ECF No. 24 filed 10/13/20 PageID.3267 Page 2 of 34 Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517.335.7659 Email: [email protected] P64713 Dated: October 13, 2020 Case 1:20-cv-00948-PLM-PJG ECF No. 24 filed 10/13/20 PageID.3268 Page 3 of 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ i Index of Authorities ....................................................................................................... ii Concise Statement of Issue Presented .......................................................................... v Counter-Statement of Facts .......................................................................................... 1 Argument ....................................................................................................................... 5 I. Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction should be denied because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim or imminent irreparable harm. ................ 5 A. Preliminary injunction factors. ................................................................ 5 B. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims. .................... 6 1. This Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the Colorado River Abstention Doctrine. ...................................................................... 6 2. Alternatively, this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory claims under Gottfried v Medical Planning Services. ................ 11 3. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim on a theory of vote-dilution. ................................................................................ 13 4. Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims. ........................................... 16 C. Plaintiffs cannot show an irreparable injury absent an injunction. ............................................................................................... 24 D. The balance of harms and the public interest weigh against granting the injunction. ......................................................................... 25 Conclusion and Relief Requested ................................................................................ 26 Certificate of Service .................................................................................................... 27 i Case 1:20-cv-00948-PLM-PJG ECF No. 24 filed 10/13/20 PageID.3269 Page 4 of 34 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2006) ................................................... 24 Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015) ......................................................................................................... 18 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................................................................. 14 Barden Detroit Casino L.L.C. v. City of Detroit, 59 F. Supp. 2d 641 (E.D. Mich. 1999) ............................................................................................................... 17 Baskin v. Bath Tp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 15 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 1994) ..................... 7 Bates v. Van Buren Tp., 122 F. App'x 803 (6th Cir. 2004) ........................................... 7 Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) ....................................................................... 17 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ..................................................................... 17, 18, 20 Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000) ............................ 16 Carson v. Simon, No. 20-CV-2030, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188454 (D. Minn Oct. 11, 2020) ............................................................................................................ 15 Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................................. 24 Cf. Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Ass'n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009) ......... 5 Chabad of S. Ohio & Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 363 F.3d 427 (6th Cir.2004) .................................................................................................... 25 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) ................................................................................................................ passim Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn., 274 F.3d 377 (6th Cir.2001) .......................................................................... 25 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ........................................................................... 24 Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) ......................................................................... 22, 23 G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir.1994) ................................................................................................................... 25 ii Case 1:20-cv-00948-PLM-PJG ECF No. 24 filed 10/13/20 PageID.3270 Page 5 of 34 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ...................................................................... 14 Gottfried v. Med. Planning Servs., 142 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 1998) ................... 11, 13, 25 Great Earth Cos. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2002) ........................................... 7 Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167 (1959) ................................................................... 12 Healthcare Co. v. Upward Mobility, Inc., 784 F. App'x 390 (6th Cir. 2019) ................ 7 Hoover v. Wagner, 47 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 1995) ............................................................ 26 In re De Lorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir. 1985) ........................................... 6 Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLC, 630 F. Supp.2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2008) .................................................................................................................. 6 Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180 (1952) ................... 11 Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) ........................................................ 6 Maddox v. Board of State Cavanssers, 149 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1944) ........................... 23 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) .................................................................... 17 Millsaps v. Thompson, 259 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2001) ................................................. 22 Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) ................... 9 NEOCH v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999 (6th Cir. 2006) ................................................... 16 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................................................... 25 Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 543 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2008) ............................. 16 PaineWebber, Inc. v. Cohen, 276 F.3d 197 (6th Cir. 2001) ........................................... 7 Romine v. Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1998) .................................... 7, 9 Stenberg v. Cheker Oil Co., 573 F.2d 921 (6th Cir. 1978) ............................................ 6 Summit County Democratic Cent. & Exec Comm. v. Blackwell, 388 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................................... 16 White v. Morris, 972 F.2d 350 (Table) (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 1992) ................................... 11 iii Case 1:20-cv-00948-PLM-PJG ECF No. 24 filed 10/13/20 PageID.3271 Page 6 of 34 Statutes Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.21 ........................................................................................... 5 Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.46 ......................................................................................... 22 Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.47 ......................................................................................... 22 Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.759b ..............................................................................