• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC • Capitol View, 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900, Lansing, MI 48933 [email protected] [email protected] 965-8803(313) 48226 MI Detroit, Avenue 500 Woodward Plaintiffs Counsel for HillClark PLC Shekell D. (P75327) Brian R. Charles Spies (P83260) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 374-9133(517) 48933 MI Lansing, Suite Street, 201 Townsend 900 Plaintiffs Counsel for Gossett PLLC Dykema (P75486) Scott Hughes A. Jason (P61813) T. Hanselman (P26290) P. Gordon Gary Defendant. State, of Secretary as official capacity inBENSON, her JOCELYN v. Plaintiffs, VAUPEL, THOMPSON, HANK DORIAN and ALEXANDRAMUCCI, SAVINA ZOE COX, TERRI LAURA LYNN LAND, REPUBLICANMICHIGAN PARTY, Case 1:19-cv-00669ECFNo.1filed08/22/19PageID.1Pageof25 WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANWESTERN OF DISTRICT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED COURT STATES DISTRICT SOUTHERN DIVISION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY COMPLAINT FOR Hon. No.: Case DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC • Capitol View, 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900, Lansing, MI 48933 marks omitted). marks 1 also while affiliation, political to tied specifically selection and eligibility commissioner with body redress alleged partisan gerrymandering, the ballot proposal in fact established a partisan public districts. legislative state of congressional redistricting and commission to oversee proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution to establish an independent citizens redistricting bythe and Amendments First Fourteenth secured States to United Constitution. the State, of Secretary follows:as allege as capacity official her in Benson, Jocelyn Defendant against Complaint their for PLC, Hill Clark and PLLC Gossett Dykema counsel, their through and by Vaupel, Hank and Thompson, Dorian Mucci, Cal. Democratic Party v. Party Jones Cal. Democratic Plaintiffs Michigan Republican Party, Laura Cox, Terri Lynn Land, Savina Alexandra Zoe Zoe Alexandra Savina Land, Lynn Terri Cox, Laura Party, Republican Michigan Plaintiffs 3. 2. 1. Case 1:19-cv-00669ECFNo.1filed08/22/19PageID.2Page2of25 Although Although marketed to the public and voters as an “independent” commission to At the November 6, 2018 general election, Michigan voters approved a ballot This civil rights action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate rights association’s being. who share the if associations could not limit control over their interests decisions to those and guarantee empty an associationprove wouldof Freedom associate. persuasions that is to underlie say, a corollary the of the right to association, and to associate limit the association is to those the people only. That right not to presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the furtherance of First common Amendment political protects Consistent beliefs, with this the tradition, the which Court freedom has almost recognized necessarily that to the concurrent withjoin political the together views. The formation in formation of of promoting national the among political parties Republic the was electorate itself. unimaginable candidates without who the ability espouse of their citizens Representative to democracy band in any together populous in unit of governance is , 530U.S. 567,574-75 (internal citations (2000) quotation and 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 2 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC • Capitol View, 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900, Lansing, MI 48933 infirmities and violations that exist as a result of the Michigan ballotinfirmities that exist proposal. Michigan violations the and result of a as civilviolates their rights,here. as commission, but they vehemently oppose any commission that is structured in a manner that on violates freedoms of and infringes of protection thelaws. of equal speech, guarantees pools of applicants. two major political parties by allocating a minority of seats on the commission to each of those official a partisan opposite political the party. of of elected inhands highly instead the responsibility that places Party, Republican Michigan the of case the in and office, public partisan involvement. any specific consideration of the applicants’ past or current political activity, expression, party affiliation without any involvement or or consent of the applicable political party and without respective their in standard selecting bearers.role are selected without any involvement of state political parties that historically have played a key and expression. activity political past and current for associates) and relatives their (and individuals countless disqualifying 4. 10. constitutional same the without commissions redistricting created have states Other 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. Case 1:19-cv-00669ECFNo.1filed08/22/19PageID.3Page3of25 Plaintiffs are not necessarily opposed to the general concept of a redistricting The ballot proposal constitutes an unconstitutional burden on associational rights, At the same time, the proposal penalizes applicants who affiliate with one of the The proposal usurps the role of political parties in selecting their nominees for The ballot proposal permits applicants for commissioner to self-designate their The ballot proposal creates a system whereby members to a partisan public office 3 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC • Capitol View, 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900, Lansing, MI 48933 United States Constitution and under federal States law, United Constitution under and 42 U.S.C. §1983. in November approved 2018. ballot the proposal implementation of adoption and disfavored. affiliate intentionally are who politicalapplicants party major with a where and bearers standard elected their or parties political state of involvement the or registration Michigan, where members to partisan public office are selected without any official party his preceding application.” Cal. immediately or her Const. 21, art § 2. commission members shall have voted in two of the last affiliation for five or more years immediately preceding three the date of his or her appointment. Each statewide general elections political party or unaffiliated with a political party and who has not commissioner shall changed be a voter who political has been continuously registered in party California with the same redistricting commission members (like in Michigan), the state constitution provides: “Each more three or appointment.” immediately preceding for Ariz. Const.,party 4,pt. 2,§1. art years continuously registered with the same political party or registered as unaffiliated with a political commission. Additionally, each member must be a registered Arizona voter “who redistricting has been commission, and those four commissioners then select a fifth member of the Const., 3,§2. art. legislative leaders and by the state chairmen of the two largest political parties in the state. Idaho 12. In Arizona, state legislative leaders appoint four commissioners to an independent 11. In Idaho, members of the redistricting commission are appointed by the four state 16. This civil rights action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the 15. Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy the constitutional violations arising from the 14. No other state with an independent redistricting commission adopts a system like 13. And in California, which utilizes a random draw process to select some of the Case 1:19-cv-00669ECFNo.1filed08/22/19PageID.4Page4of25 JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC • Capitol View, 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900, Lansing, MI 48933 ineligible under the under VNP her of ineligible political Proposal because current activity. and past partisan state office, from 2015 through 2018. Cox wishes to serve on the commission but is Commissioner, a partisan local office, from 2005 through 2014, and as a State Representative, a Representative and State Senator, each a partisan state office. Cox served as Wayne 2019. County Within the past six years, Cox eligible to was vote in the State. Cox currently serves a as chair of MRP, a position she declared has held since candidate for the offices of State of itself onbehalf action its and members. values with election or appointment to partisan federal, state, and local office. MRP brings this general purpose of promoting Republican values and for assisting candidates who share those maintains headquarters at 520 Street,Seymour Lansing, Michigan 48912. MRP is formed for the term is defined in Section 16 of the Michigan Election Law. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.16. MRP powers equitable and this of legal Court. general the by and Procedure, Civil of Rules Federal the of 65 and Rules57 by 2202, and 2201 §§ the District Western for Michigan.State of Defendant has an office located in Ingham County, which is in the United States District Court, part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within the district and because 1343. §§ 1331and 18. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all or a substantial 17. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21. and registered is and Michigan, County, Wayne of resident a is Cox Laura Plaintiff 20. Plaintiff Michigan Republican Party (“MRP”) is a “major political party” as that 19. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. Case 1:19-cv-00669ECFNo.1filed08/22/19PageID.5Page5of25 IDENTIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION PARTIES 5 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC • Capitol View, 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900, Lansing, MI 48933 eligible eligible to vote in the State. Within the past six years, Vaupel was a declared candidate

Load more

  25

Copy Link