Application — Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan, et al., Applicants v. SawariMedia, LLC, et al.

No. _________

In the Supreme Court of the United States

GRETCHEN WHITMER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN; JOCELYN BENSON, SECRETARY

OF STATE OF MICHIGAN; JONATHAN BRATER, DIRECTOR OF THE MICHIGAN BUREAU

OF ELECTIONS, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, APPLICANTS

v.

SAWARIMEDIA L.L.C., ET AL.

APPENDIX D to Emergency Application to Stay the Preliminary Injunction Pending a Merits Decision by the Court of Appeals

Appendix D: The district court’s June 24, 2020 order denying the emergency motion

for stay pending appeal.

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.391

Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAWARIMEDIA LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 20-cv-11246

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.

GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A

STAY PENDING EMERGENCY APPEAL (ECF No. 30)

Plaintiff SawariMedia LLC is a civil-rights organization that seeks to place an

initiative on Michigan’s 2020 general election ballot. On June 11, 2020, this Court

enjoined Defendants from keeping SawariMedia’s proposed initiative off the ballot

based on SawariMedia’s inability to collect the required 340,047 signatures by the

May 27, 2020, filing deadline. (See Op. and Order, ECF No. 17.) Defendants have

now moved for an emergency stay of the Court’s preliminary injunction while they

pursue an emergency appeal. (See Mot., ECF No. 30.) Defendants filed their

emergency motion for a stay on the evening of June 23, 2020, and they asked the

Court to rule on that motion by no later than 5:00 p.m. the next day, June 24, 2020.

(See id., PageID.358.) Given the press of time, the Court’s discussion and analysis

below is necessarily truncated. The Court included a full recitation and analysis of

1

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.392

Page 2 of 18

the background facts and controlling law in its Opinion and Order granting

injunctive relief. (See Op. and Order, ECF No. 17, PageID.222-231.) The Court

encourages the reader to begin with that ruling.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion for an emergency stay is

DENIED.

I

A

SawariMedia “is a coalition of like-minded individuals who work together to

educate and promote their political views in the public arena.” (Decl. of Amani

Sawari, owner and manager of SawariMedia, at ¶2, ECF No. 2, PageID.66.) In the

“summer of 2019,” SawariMedia media began planning to place an initiative on

Michigan’s 2020 general election ballot. (Id. at ¶4, PageID.66.) That initiative seeks

“to allow all [Michigan] prisoners regardless of the date on which they were

sentenced, the right to earn time off their sentences by incentivizing good behavior,

academic and professional achievement.” See http://mprca.info/petition.

Under Michigan law, in order to place the initiative on the 2020 general

election ballot, SawariMedia needed to submit “petitions signed by a number of

registered electors, not less than eight percent … of the total vote cast for all

candidates for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor

was elected.” Mich. Const., 1963, art. 2, § 9. A total of 4,250,585 votes were cast

2

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.393

Page 3 of 18

in Michigan’s last general election for Governor.1 Thus, SawariMedia needed to

collect 340,047 valid signatures in order to secure a spot for its initiative proposal

on Michigan’s 2020 general election ballot. Under Michigan law, the petitions

containing those signatures had to be filed with the Michigan Secretary of State by

not later than May 27, 2020. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.471 (requiring the filing

of initiative petitions with the Secretary of State “at least 160 days before the election

at which the proposed law would appear on the ballot”).

Once signed petitions are filed with the Secretary of State, the Board of State

Canvassers “shall canvass the petitions to ascertain if the petitions have been signed

by the requisite number of qualified and registered [voters].” Mich. Comp. Laws

§ 168.476. The canvassing process also allows interested parties to challenge a

determination made about a signature’s validity. The Board of State Canvassers

must complete their canvass and “shall make an official declaration of the

sufficiency or insufficiency of an initiative petition no later than 100 days before the

election at which the proposal is to be submitted.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.477(1).

If the Board of State Canvassers declares that an initiative petition has sufficient

signatures, the Michigan Legislature then has “40 session days” to either “enact[]”

the proposal “without change or amendment” or reject the proposal. Mich. Const.,

1963, art. 2, § 9. “If the Legislature does not enact the proposal within 40 session

1

See https://mielections.us/election/results/2018GEN_CENR.html.

3

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.394

Page 4 of 18

days, the Board of State Canvassers must prepare the proposal for the ballot.”

(Declaration of Defendant Jonathan Brater, Michigan Director of Elections, at ¶11,

ECF No. 7-2, PageID.151-152, citing Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.474a, 168.480.)

By early March, SawariMedia appeared to be well on its way to collecting a

sufficient number of signatures to place its initiative on the November 2020 general

election ballot. At that time, it had “collected approximately two-hundred fifteen

thousand (215,000) valid signatures” in support of the initiative – an average of over

22,000 per week. (Sawari Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 7, ECF No. 2, PageID.66-67.) But then, on

March 10, 2020, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services identified

the first two presumptive-positive cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus in Michigan.2

Governor Whitmer declared a “State of Emergency” that same day. The State of

Emergency executive order recognized that COVID-19 “can easily spread from

person to person” and could “result in serious illness or death.”3 Three days later,

on March 13, 2020, Governor Whitmer closed Michigan’s schools and prohibited

2

See Gov. Whitmer Executive Order 2020-04, Declaration of State of Emergency,

https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-521576--,00.html.

3

Id.

4

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.395

Page 5 of 18

gatherings of more than 250 people.4 On March 16, 2020, Governor Whitmer closed

various places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, bars, and gyms.5

On March 23, 2020, Governor Whitmer issued what has become known as

the “Stay-at-Home Order.”6 The Stay-at-Home Order, subject to very limited

exceptions, required “all individuals currently living within the State of Michigan

… to stay at home or at their place of residence. Subject to the same exceptions, all

public and private gatherings of any number of people occurring among persons not

part of a single household [were also] prohibited.”7 The Stay-at-Home Order also

provided that “[c]onsistent with [Mich. Comp. Laws §] 10.33 and [Mich. Comp.

Laws §] 30.405(3), a willful violation of th[e] order [was] a misdemeanor.”8

Governor Whitmer subsequently issued several additional executive orders

extending the Stay-at-Home Order beyond the May 27, 2020, filing deadline for

ballot initiative petitions.

4

See Gov. Whitmer Executive Order 2020-5, Temporary Prohibition on Large

Assemblages and Events, Temporary School Closures, https://www.michigan.gov/

whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-521595--,00.html.

5

See Gov. Whitmer Executive Order 2020-9, Temporary Restrictions on the Use of

Places of Public Accommodation, https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7A387-90499_90705-521789--,00.html.

6

See Gov. Whitmer Executive Order 2020-21, Temporary Requirement to Suspend

Activities That Are Not Necessary to Sustain or Protect Life,

https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-522626--,00.html.

7

Id.

8

Id.

5

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.396

Page 6 of 18

B

SawariMedia insists that Governor Whitmer’s executive orders, and the

enforcement of those orders, “made it impossible” to collect the required number of

signatures by the May 27, 2020, filing deadline. (Sawari Decl. at ¶20, ECF No. 2,

PageID.69.) Thus, on May 4, 2020, SawariMedia and three would-be petition

signers filed this action against Governor Whitmer, Michigan Secretary of State

Jocelyn Benson, and Michigan’s Director of Elections Jonathan Brater.9 (See

Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ strict enforcement of the

May 27, 2020, filing deadline and the requirement that SawariMedia collect 340,047

signatures under the present circumstances violates their First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. (See id. at ¶¶ 49-60, PageID.10-11.) Plaintiffs also moved for a

temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. (See Mot., ECF No. 2.)

The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ injunction motion on June 5, 2020, and

it granted the motion in a written Opinion and Order on June 11, 2020. (See Op. and

Order, ECF No. 17.) In that Opinion and Order, the Court explained that Sixth

Circuit precedent “dictates” that this Court review Plaintiffs’ First Amendment

challenges to Michigan’s signature requirement and filing deadline for ballot

9

As explained in the Court’s Opinion and Order, due to a delay in filing pro se

documents as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs’ Complaint was not

posted to the Court’s docket until May 20, 2020.

6

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.397

Page 7 of 18

initiatives “under the Anderson-Burdick framework.”10 Thompson v. DeWine, --F.3d ---, 2020 WL 2702483, at *2 (6th Cir. May 26, 2020). Under AndersonBurdick, a court first determines “the burden [that] the State’s regulation imposes on

the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.” Id. Then, if that burden is “severe,” a court

reviews the regulation under strict scrutiny to determine if it is “narrowly drawn to

advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434.

In this case, the Court held that “Michigan’s signature requirement and filing

deadline for ballot initiative petitions, in combination with Governor Whitmer’s

Stay-at-Home Order, severely burdened Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to the ballot.”

(Op. and Order, ECF No. 17, PageID.247.) The Court relied heavily on the decision

in Esshaki v. Whitmer, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1910154 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20,

2020). In Esshaki, another Judge of this Court held that Michigan’s filing deadline

and signature requirement for nominating petitions for the United States House of

Representatives in combination with Governor Whitmer’s Stay-At-Home Orders

severely burdened the constitutional rights of candidates seeking to qualify for

Michigan’s primary ballot. See id. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that portion of the

court’s ruling. See Esshaki v. Whitmer, --- F. App’x ---, 2020 WL 2185553 (6th Cir.

May 5, 2020). Echoing Esshaki, this Court explained:

10

See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S.

428 (1992).

7

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.398

Page 8 of 18

Like the plaintiff in Esshaki, the Plaintiffs here faced a

daunting signature requirement with a firm deadline in the

midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. And from March 23,

2020, through May 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs in this action

were subject to the exact same Stay-at-Home Order (and

the extensions of that order) as the plaintiff in Esshaki –

an order that prohibited Michiganders from leaving their

homes except in very limited circumstances. Then, from

May 7 through May 27, 2020 (the petition submission

deadline), the Plaintiffs here were subject to three

additional executive orders that continued to require

Michigan residents to stay in their homes and avoid all

public and private gatherings except as expressly

authorized. Just as in Esshaki, the State “pulled the rug out

from under the ability [of Plaintiffs] to collect signatures”

and “[a]bsent relief, [Plaintiffs’] lack of a viable,

alternative means to procure the signatures [they] need[]

means that [they] face virtual exclusion from the ballot.”

Esshaki, 2020 WL 1910154, at *6. Thus, as in Esshaki,

this burden on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights is

severe.

(Op. and Order, ECF No. 17, PageID.238.) The Court then recognized that the

Defendants had compelling interests in enforcing the signature requirement and

filing deadline. (See id., PageID.247.) However, the Court concluded that, as in

Esshaki, “under the current circumstances and as applied to Plaintiffs,” the signature

requirement and filing deadline were not narrowly tailored. (Id.) The Court therefore

“enjoined [Defendants] from excluding Plaintiffs’ ballot initiative from the 2020

general election ballot on the basis that Plaintiffs did not collect 340,047 valid

signatures by the May 27, 2020, filing deadline.” (Id., PageID.255.)

It then

instructed Defendants to “select [their] own adjustments so as to reduce the burden

8

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.399

Page 9 of 18

on ballot access” and “narrow the restrictions” on Plaintiffs in order to “render the

application of the [signature requirement and filing deadline] constitutional under

the circumstances.” (Id., PageID.256, quoting Esshaki, 2020 WL 2185553, at *2.)

C

Defendants filed a notice of proposed remedy on June 18, 2020. (See Notice,

ECF No. 23.) In that proposed remedy, Defendants presented Plaintiffs with two

possible options:

 Defendants would agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to collect and file

340,047 valid signatures in order to appear on the 2020 general election ballot

until July 6, 2020; or

 Defendants would agree to toll the time period by which signatures that

Plaintiffs had collected to date would expire by 79 days, thereby allowing

Plaintiffs an opportunity to qualify for the 2022 ballot without having to start

their signature gathering over from square one.

The Court held an on-the-record telephonic status conference to discuss the

proposed remedy on June 22, 2020, and it rejected both suggested options. (See

6/22/2020 Status Conf. Tr., ECF No. 28; Order Rejecting Proposed Remedy, ECF

No. 25.) The Court rejected both aspects of the proposed remedy for the reasons

explained below.

9

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.400

Page 10 of 18

Defendants have now appealed both (1) the Court’s Opinion and Order

granting Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and (2) the Court’s rejection of their

proposed remedy. (See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 26.) They have also filed an

emergency motion for a stay pending appeal in this Court. (See Mot., ECF No. 30.)

II

“A stay is an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and

judicial review.” Dodds v. United States Dep’t of Education, 845. F.3d 217, 220 (6th

Cir. 2016) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425 (2009)). “To determine

whether to stay the grant of a preliminary injunction, [courts] balance four factors:

the movant’s likelihood of success on appeal; whether irreparable injury to the

movant will result in the absence of a stay; prospective harm to others if a stay is

granted; and the public’s interest in granting a stay.” Id. These are the “the same

factors considered in determining whether to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction.”

Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008).

III

A

The Court begins with whether Defendants are likely to succeed on either

aspect of their appeal. They are not.

As an initial matter, Defendants have not shown that they are likely to prevail

on their appeal of the preliminary injunction. In the Court’s Opinion and Order

10

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.401

Page 11 of 18

granting the injunction, the Court explained at length why the burden on Plaintiffs’

constitutional rights was severe, why the applicable provisions of Michigan law were

not narrowly tailored under these circumstances, and why the remaining factors

favored a grant of injunctive relief. In Defendants’ motion for a stay, they offer very

little argument about, or analysis of, the Court’s reasoning and conclusions. Instead,

they rely on the arguments they presented in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion seeking

entry of the injunction. The Court rejected those arguments for the reasons stated in

its Opinion and Order, and the Defendants have not shown any error in the Court’s

analysis. Thus, Defendants have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed in

their appeal of the preliminary injunction.

Next, for two reasons, the Defendants have not shown that they are likely to

prevail on their appeal of the Court’s rejection of their proposed remedy. First, the

Defendants have not cast serious doubt on the Court’s conclusion that the proposed

remedy fails to eliminate the severe burden on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Simply put, the proposed remedy does not provide Plaintiffs a meaningful or

reasonable opportunity to place their initiative on the 2020 general election ballot.

The proposed remedy gives Plaintiffs only 25 days – not 40 days as Defendants

contend11 – to gather 125,000 signatures.

And during those 25 days, all

As described above, the proposed remedy extends the deadline for Plaintiffs to

collect and file 340,047 valid signatures until July 6, 2020. As Defendants

accurately note, there are 40 days between the previous filing deadline (May 27,

11

11

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.402

Page 12 of 18

Michiganders are subject to continuing restrictions by Governor Whitmer that will

substantially inhibit Plaintiffs’ ability to collect signatures. For instance, while

Governor Whitmer has now rescinded the Stay-at-Home Order, the executive orders

that remain in place still prohibit indoor gatherings of more than 50 people and

outdoor gatherings of more than 250 people.12 Such gatherings are the prime

locations where petition seekers ordinarily gather signatures. The current orders also

restrict the capacity of retail establishments, arcades, bowling alleys, public

swimming pools, concert spaces, race tracks, sports arenas, and other public

2020) and July 6, 2020. But 15 of those days (May 27 – June 11) were after the

original filing deadline and before the Court issued its preliminary injunction.

During those 15 days, it would not have been reasonable for Plaintiffs to have been

collecting signatures.

The Defendants had informed Plaintiffs that they

(Defendants) would not accept for filing any signatures collected after May 27, 2020,

and the Court had yet to issue its injunction. Thus, it would have been entirely

reasonable for Plaintiffs to refrain from collecting signatures during the 15-day

“dead period” between the original filing deadline (May 27) and the entry of the

Court’s injunction (June 11). Indeed, it would have made no sense for them to spend

time and money collecting signatures that the Defendants said they would not accept.

At an absolute minimum, Defendants should not be heard to complain here that

Plaintiffs should have been collecting signatures between May 27 and June 11 when

the Defendants told Plaintiffs prior to that time that Defendants would not accept

such signatures. For all of these reasons, the 15 days between May 27 and June 11

should not reasonably be counted when calculating the true length of the deadline

extension proposed by Defendants.

12

See Gov. Whitmer Executive Order 2020-115, Temporary restrictions on certain

events, gatherings, and businesses, https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7387-90499_90705-531127--,00.html.

12

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.403

Page 13 of 18

spaces.13 And the orders further provide that “[w]ork that can be performed remotely

(i.e., without the worker leaving his or her home or place of residence) should be

performed remotely.”14 These orders, taken together, substantially limit the number

of people who would ordinarily be in public for recreational and/or employment

purposes, and they thus create a significant barrier to signature collection.

Defendants’ suggestions that Plaintiffs should be able to collect signatures at the

same pace as before the pandemic ignores that these myriad restrictions were not in

place in January and February when Plaintiffs were previously gathering signatures.

For all of these reasons, Defendants’ proposed modest extension of the signature

filing deadline does not give Plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to qualify their

proposal for the ballot and does not eliminate the severe burden on Plaintiffs’

constitutional rights.

Second, Defendants have not shown error in the Court’s conclusion that their

proposed remedy is not narrowly tailored under the circumstances. For example,

Defendants have not sufficiently demonstrated that they are unable to extend the

signature filing deadline beyond July 6, 2020. Defendants say that they cannot

extend the deadline beyond that date because there are a number of other steps that

13

See id. See also Gov. Whitmer Executive Order 2020-114, Safeguards to protect

Michigan’s workers from COVID-19, https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,

7-387-90499_90705-531123--,00.html.

14

Id.

13

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.404

Page 14 of 18

must take place between the time the initiative petitions are submitted and when

ballots need to be printed for the November general election. But Defendants have

a number of possible options that would permit them to extend the petition

submission deadline and still print the ballots on schedule. Defendants could start

canvassing Plaintiffs’ currently collected 215,000 signatures now, and allow

challenges to those signatures now, instead of waiting to canvass the signatures all

at once after a newly imposed filing deadline. If the Defendants took that route, then

after the new filing deadline (1) the Board of State Canvassers would have far fewer

petitions to review and (2) fewer challenges to signatures would need to be

adjudicated. Since there would be less work to do after the deadline, the deadline

could be further extended. In addition, the amount of time that the Michigan

Legislature has to consider Plaintiffs’ ballot initiative could be reduced below the

currently scheduled 40 session days. As the Court explained in the Opinion and

Order, the Michigan Legislature, during this pandemic, has introduced, considered,

and voted on bills in far less than 40 session days. (See Op. and Order, ECF No. 17,

PageID.248 n.20.) Finally, Defendants could reduce the signature requirement to a

meaningful number that still ensures that a ballot proposal has a modicum of public

support. Indeed, the district court in Esshaki concluded that a remedy that, among

other things, reduced the signature requirement required for candidates to appear on

the 2020 primary ballot, would be narrowly tailored. See Esshaki, 2020 WL

14

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.405

Page 15 of 18

1910154, at *11. The Defendants agreed to reduce the signature requirement in

Esshaki, and they may wish to do the same here.15 (See Esshaki, E.D. Mich. Case

No. 20-cv-10831, at ECF No. 38.)

Finally, the aspect of Defendants’ proposed remedy giving Plaintiffs a

potential route to place their proposal on the 2022 ballot – by extending the life of

signatures they have already obtained16 – is not an effective remedy for the

constitutional violation found by the Court. The Court found that the Defendants

wrongfully excluded Plaintiffs’ proposal from the 2020 ballot. Giving Plaintiffs a

shot at getting their proposal on a later ballot does nothing to alleviate the damage

from their wrongful exclusion from the current ballot. Moreover, this aspect of

Defendants’ proposed remedy offers Plaintiffs very little because, even without

15

In Defendants’ stay motion, they argue that “the Court abused its discretion in

ordering [a] signature reduction because it went beyond what was necessary to

alleviate Plaintiffs’ burden as alleged under the circumstances.” (Mot., ECF No. 30,

PageID.380-381; emphasis added.) But the Court has never ordered a signature

reduction. The Court’s Opinion and Order granting the injunction specifically said

that the Court was not mandating any particular remedy. (See Op. and Order, ECF

No. 17, PageID.255-256.) And while the Court rejected Defendants’ most recent

proposed remedy, the Court did not state that an effective remedy had to include a

signature reduction. Reducing the number of signatures Plaintiffs are required to

collect is simply one option Defendants could employ in order to alleviate the

violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

16

While the Michigan Court of Claims ordered this remedy in a case involving a

similar challenge (under state law) to Michigan’s ballot access requirements for

initiative proposals, see Fair and Equal Michigan v. Benson, Mich. Ct. Claims Case

No. 20-000095 (June 6, 2020), that court did not find the same constitutional

violation found by this Court. That the Court of Claims chose this remedy thus sheds

little light on whether the remedy is proper here.

15

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.406

Page 16 of 18

Defendants’ proposal, Plaintiffs would have a full opportunity to get their proposal

on the 2022 ballot. Defendants’ suggestion that Plaintiffs try for the 2022 ballot is

simply not a sufficient remedy.

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that Defendants have not shown

a likelihood of success on their appeal of either (1) the Court’s injunction or (2) the

Court’s rejection of their proposed remedy.

B

The Court is not persuaded that any of the other factors favor a stay.

Defendants argue that “[w]hile there will be no irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs

without an injunction, the issuance of an injunction will irreparably harm the State

and its citizens.” (Mot., ECF No. 30, PageID.383.) Defendants insist that:

Either the Sixth Circuit agrees that the injunction was

unwarranted or the State Defendants’ remedy was

sufficient, or the Sixth Circuit upholds the injunction. If

the Sixth Circuit finds that injunctive relief was not

warranted, then Plaintiffs will be not harmed by staying an

injunction to which they are not entitled. Or, if Sixth

Circuit decides that the Defendants’ proposed relief was

sufficient, then the relief offered by the Defendants will be

available to Plaintiffs without interference by the stay. On

the other hand, if the Sixth Circuit decides that an

injunction was appropriate and the proposed relief was

insufficient, then the Defendants will likely be required to

propose a different remedy that allows Plaintiffs another

opportunity to access the November 2020 ballot. In any of

these outcomes, Plaintiffs will not be inconvenienced by a

temporary stay pending the determination of the appeal.

(Id., PageID.385.)

16

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.407

Page 17 of 18

But a stay would subject Plaintiffs to irreparable harm here. Plaintiffs need to

know precisely how many signatures they need to gather and how many days they

have to collect those signatures as quickly as possible so that they can best marshal

their resources. As described above, there are still significant restrictions in place

on the movement of Michiganders that will make for a very difficult signaturegathering environment. Any period of uncertainty will make it more difficult for

Plaintiffs to access the 2020 general election ballot. And depending on the length of

a stay, and the length of Defendants’ appeal, the Court may or may not be able to

remedy that harm given the other procedural steps that must be taken before ballots

are printed.

In addition, for all of the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order, the Court

remains persuaded that the public interest would not be served by a stay. As the

Court explained, “‘[t]he broader public interest [would] not [be] served by

preserving the current signature-gathering scheme’ which would have forced

‘supporters [of ballot initiatives] to risk their health and criminal penalties to gather

signatures.’ [] Moreover, absent relief, Michigan voters would ‘lose the ability’ to

vote for a ballot initiative that, ‘absent the pandemic, would have [likely] been

included on the ballot.’ Id. For all of these reasons, the harm to the public and the

Plaintiffs outweighs the State’s legitimate interest in enforcing its election laws in

the manner and timeframe established prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Op. and

17

Case 4:20-cv-11246-MFL-MJH ECF No. 32 filed 06/24/20

PageID.408

Page 18 of 18

Order, ECF No. 17, PageID.254, quoting Esshaki, 2020 WL 1910154, at *9.) The

same reasoning applies to Defendants’ motion for a stay.

IV

For all of these reasons, Defendants have not persuaded the Court that they

are entitled to a stay of the Court’s preliminary injunction. Defendants’ motion for

a stay pending appeal (ECF No. 30) is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 24, 2020

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the

parties and/or counsel of record on June 24, 2020, by electronic means and/or

ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Monda

Case Manager

(810) 341-9764

18