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. Philip Randolph Institute III”). This is especially true for Michigan’s youngest voters, who are particularly vulnerable to restrictive voting laws and uniquely susceptible to voter confusion. Indeed, young voters in Michigan have historically, and to this day, been the target and victims of voting rules and requirements that are both intended to and have had the effect of making it substantially, and unjustifiably, more difficult for them to understand and navigate the process so as to exercise their right to participate in Michigan’s elections and to have an equal opportunity and voice in determining who governs the communities in which they reside. As a consequence, young voters in Michigan vote at very low rates: the difference between overall turnout and youth turnout is now larger in Michigan than in any other state. 2. This action specifically challenges: (i) Michigan Public Act 118 of 1999 (“Public Act 118”), which requires that a voter’s residence for voter registration purposes match the address listed on her Michigan driver’s license, see 2 Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.106 Page 3 of 79 MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 257.307(1)(c), 257.315(1); and (ii) MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.509t(2), which is the current statute that requires that those who register to vote by mail or through third-party registration drives and are under 60 years of age must vote in-person the first time they vote (the “First-Time/In-Person Requirement”). While Public Act 118 and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement independently make registering and voting unduly confusing and difficult for young voters, in combination, they place nearly insurmountable barriers between many young voters and their fundamental right to vote. 3. Public Act 118 is commonly known in Michigan as “Rogers’ Law,” after then-Republican State Senator Mike Rogers, who sponsored and championed the legislation. Rogers’ Law, both by design and in practice, has made it significantly more difficult for eligible young voters—and, in particular, in-state college students who live and attend school in a region different than that where their family resides—to successfully navigate the process to exercise their right to participate in elections in Michigan. The legislative history of Rogers’ Law shows that, at the time the law was proposed, legislators were well-aware of the disproportionate and disenfranchising impact its matching-address requirement would have on young voters, particularly college students, and that it was intended to have that very impact. Indeed, revealing his true motive in sponsoring the legislation, Rogers himself stated that it is a “slap in the face to democracy” to 3 Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.107 Page 4 of 79 permit “students” to “be registered in one place and live in another.” Statement of Sen. Rogers, Mich. Senate, Mar. 18, 1999 Transcript (“Tr.”) at 9. According to Rogers, “students” should “do it right,” and “vote responsibly,” i.e. not in their college communities; and they should be permitted to “register at the campus, if they feel that that’s their home” only if they “have their driver’s license moved there.” Id. at 10-11 (emphasis added). 4. Rogers’ own electoral circumstances, preceding and immediately after passage of the law, provide further evidence that the intent was to discourage young, college students from voting, and that the law accomplished precisely that. Many in the Legislature had opined that this was the case, and it quickly proved to be true. Immediately after passage of Rogers’ Law, Rogers went on to win—by 111 votes—the November 2000 election for Michigan’s 8th Congressional District (“CD-8”), which includes a large student population and the campus of Michigan State University. Rogers owes his victory in large part to the confusion and disenfranchisement of young, college-student voters resulting from the wholly unnecessary and inherently confusing law he had just championed and worked to pass. 5. Rogers’ Law particularly and disproportionately impacts young voters, especially those who attend college in Michigan while still retaining a connection to their family’s home elsewhere in the state. As compared to the 4 Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.108 Page 5 of 79 general voting population, young voters are not only more likely to frequently move, but also to seek to maintain two addresses for different purposes: their residential address where they attend school for most of the year (but which regularly changes at least once a year, and in many cases more frequently), and their address at their family’s home. Rogers’ Law has caused widespread confusion among these voters, who have little to no experience with voting and navigating the surrounding election processes. 6. In particular, because of Rogers’ Law, Michigan’s young voters are regularly and persistently confused as to: (i) whether they may register to vote using their college address, if their driver’s license lists their parents’ address; (ii) whether changing their driver’s license address will result in negative consequences, including in terms of preserving health insurance coverage under their parents’ plans, qualifying as their parents’ dependent for tax purposes, and maintaining scholarships and financial aid; (iii) whether they must apply for a new driver’s license that reflects their on-campus address, if they seek to vote on- campus, and how to do so; and (iv) whether failure to comply with the matching- address requirement bars them from voting at their campus polling place, despite being registered there. 7. In the years since its enactment, the confusion and disenfranchisement resulting from Rogers’ Law has continued unabated. In fact, the cloud of confusion 5 Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.109 Page 6 of 79 has stemmed from, and is reflected in, and perpetuated by, abundant and ongoing misinformation from election officials, local governments, universities, and the press. Defendant, the Secretary, has not only done nothing to address these rampant and persistent problems, she has actively contributed to them. Just months ago, in March 2018, the Secretary delivered remarks to a group of students at Michigan State University and told students living on or near campus that their campus address is not really their home, and therefore it would not be “fair” for students to register at their campus address. She went on to say that if students do choose to register to vote at their school address, they must first apply for and obtain a completely new driver’s license showing their school address prior to registering to vote at that address. Though neither of those statements comport with Michigan law, they comport entirely with the misleading and disenfranchising intent and resulting impact of Rogers’ Law. 8. Make no mistake: these students are almost universally legally eligible to vote in the communities in which they live and attend school. This is because they, like any other Michigan resident who is a U.S. citizen and 18 years of age or older, have a right to vote at their “residence,” which Michigan law defines to mean the place where a person “sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects, and has a regular place of lodging.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.11(1). The fact that many of Michigan’s student voters may wish to maintain, for the years during 6 Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.110 Page 7 of 79 which they are attending college, their family’s home address as their permanent residence address on their driver’s license, should not disqualify them from voting in the communities where they attend school and live for the vast majority of the year. But that is precisely the effect that was both intended by Rogers’ Law and that has followed since its enactment. 9. On top of the confusion and barriers to voting created by Rogers’ Law, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, which, on its face, treats voters differently based on age, piles on an additional catch-22 for many young voters.