Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute et al v. Johnson

Filing 124

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 102 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHIGAN STATE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH
INSTITUTE, MARY LANSDOWN, ERIN
COMARTIN, DION WILLIAMS and
COMMON CAUSE,

Case No. 16-cv-11844
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Plaintiffs,
v.
RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity
as Michigan Secretary of State,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [102]
I.

Introduction
The Plaintiffs—Mary Lansdown, Erin Comartin, Dion Williams, the

Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute, and Common Cause—challenge Public
Act 268 (“PA 268”). They allege that this state law violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it restricts the right to vote (Count I)
and reflects intentional discrimination on the part of the Michigan State legislature
(Count II). Plaintiffs also allege that this law contravenes Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (Count III). The Defendant is Ruth Johnson, in her
official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State (“the Secretary”).

Presently before the Court is the Secretary’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[102], filed on October 16, 2017. The motion is fully briefed. A hearing on this
motion was held on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. For the reasons
discussed herein, the Court will DENY the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [102]. All of Plaintiffs’ claims will survive the motion. 1 The Court finds
that Plaintiff Erin Comartin lacks standing, however.
II.

Background
PA 268 eliminates straight-party voting in Michigan. See 2015 PA 268.

Straight-party voting entails filling in one bubble for a particular political party, and
thereby voting for that party in each partisan contest on the ballot. Dkt. No. 56, p.
10 (Pg. ID 1101). This option allows voters to forego filling in a bubble for each
partisan candidate individually. Id. PA 268 only changes the ballot format by
removing the straight-party option; it will keep party vignettes at the top left of the
ballot. Id. at p. 18 (Pg. ID 1109).
Michigan voters have had the option of straight-party voting for 126
consecutive years. See 1891 PA 190, § 14. And they have twice repealed via
referendum laws that eliminated straight-party voting—in 1964 and again in 2001.

1

The Defendant moved to strike certain affidavits filed in conjunction with the
Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motion. See Dkt. No. 113. Based on
the Court’s ruling on the Defendant’s Motion to Strike, the Court will not consider
here the Lisa Brown affidavit, paragraph four of the Allegra Chapman affidavit, and
paragraph five of the Anita Dawson affidavit. See Dkt. Nos. 108-7, 108-14, 109.
2

See 1964 PA 240; see also 2001 PA 269. PA 268 cannot be repealed by referendum
because it provides for an appropriation of $5 million.

See Mich. United

Conservation Clubs v. Sec’y of State, 464 Mich. 359, 630 N.W.2d 297, 298 (2001).
A.

Procedural History

The Governor of Michigan signed PA 268 into law in January 2016, and the
law was to take effect in the November 2016 elections. See Dkt. No. 102-8; see also
2015 PA 268. Yet in May 2016 the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court
claiming that the bill unlawfully restricted the right to vote pursuant to the Equal
Protection Clause, and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. See Dkt. No. 1. Three days after filing the
Complaint, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the
implementation of PA 268. Dkt. No. 4. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction, finding that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits
for their Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act Claims. 2 See Mich. State A. Philip
Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 209 F. Supp. 3d 935 (E.D. Mich. 2016) (“Johnson I”).
The Defendant then (1) filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s Opinion and
Order granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction; and (2) requested that this Court

2

Plaintiffs amended the Complaint in January 2017, and pursuant to the Court’s
holding that they likely lacked standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Plaintiffs did not include this claim in the Amended Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 55,
56. Plaintiffs added the intentional discrimination claim, Count II, in the Amended
Complaint. See Dkt. No. 56.
3

stay its grant of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction pending appeal. See
Dkt. Nos. 27, 29. On August 1, 2016, the Court issued a revised Order for
Preliminary Injunction. See Dkt. No. 30. The Secretary responded by filing a second
notice of appeal, this time as to the revised Order. See Dkt. No. 33. And, on August
15, 2016 this Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to stay the Order granting Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Injunction pending appeal. See Dkt. No. 39. Two days later
the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary’s Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. Mich.
State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 659 (6th Cir. 2016)
(“Johnson II”).
B.

Evidence Submitted on Summary Judgment

In litigating this motion, the parties have submitted a wealth of expert
evidence, principally about whether PA 268 would cause longer voting lines and
disproportionately impact African-Americans. For example, Plaintiffs rely on two
reports authored by Kurt Metzger, a former Regional Information Specialist with the
United States Census Bureau in Detroit, Michigan. Dkt. No. 108-2, p. 3 (Pg. ID
2396). Metzger’s first report accompanied the original Complaint and his second
was filed with Plaintiffs’ response to the Defendant’s summary judgment motion.
See Dkt. Nos. 1-11, 108-2. In both reports, Metzger explains that he has found a
high correlation between the percentage of voting age African-Americans in a given
community and the percentage of straight-party voters in that community. See Dkt.
4

Nos. 1-11, 108-2. Metzger used different data in these two reports. He examined in
the first report the nine largest counties in Michigan for which straight-party voting
data were available, and utilized results from the November 2012 and November
2014 elections for every precinct in these counties. Dkt. No. 1-11, pp. 6–7 (Pg. ID
224–25). On the other hand, Metzger’s amended report relied on data expanded to
all eighty-three Michigan counties for 2016, sixty-nine counties for 2014, and sixtyone counties for 2012. Dkt. No. 108-2, pp. 5–6 (Pg. ID 2398–99).
Second, Plaintiffs lean on an expert report by Theodore Allen, an Associate
Professor of Industrial & Systems Engineering at Ohio State University. Dkt. No.
108-4. Allen submits in his report that the elimination of straight-party voting would
add to voter wait times—perhaps as much as 25%. Id. at p. 10 (Pg. ID 2497). He
also concluded that longer wait times would deter people from voting, and estimated
that the number of deterred voters would increase by 3% for each additional sixty
minutes of waiting time. Id. at pp. 13–14 (Pg. ID 2500–01).
Lastly, Plaintiffs’ expert Daphne Ntiri is a Professor of African-American
Studies at Wayne State University. Dkt. No. 108-5, p. 2 (Pg. ID 2511). Ntiri has
over thirty-years of experience researching adult education and adult literacy. Id. at
pp. 2–3 (Pg. ID 2511–12). In her report, she observed lower literacy rates in the
African-African community as compared to other demographics, because of
historical discrimination and the achievement gap. Id. at pp. 14–15 (Pg. ID 2523–
5

23). Ntiri posits that there would be greater confusion among African-Americans
about the ballot introduced by PA 268. Id. at pp. 17–19 (Pg. ID 2526–28).
Specifically, she argues that this confusion would result from the combination of
lower literacy rates and a ballot that removes straight-party voting, but keeps party
vignettes in their same location. Id.
The Secretary counters with reports from her experts. Laurence Rosen, a
professional demographer, observes that straight-party voting rates are high in
communities that do not have many African-American residents of voting age. Dkt.
No. 102-3, pp. 16, 21 (Pg. ID 1845, 1850). Relatedly, Rosen concludes that there is
not a strong correlation between a community’s African-American population and
straight-ticket voters. Id. at pp. 17, 36 (Pg. ID 1846, 1865).
Stephen Graves, a Professor of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, also offers an expert report on behalf of the Secretary. Dkt. No. 1025. He has found that voting lines are longer with straight-party voting than without
because voters take time to contemplate which party to support before proceeding
with a straight-party ballot. Id. at pp. 4, 16–17 (Pg. ID 1935, 1947–48).
Similarly, Plaintiffs’ expert Paul Herrnson, a Professor of Political Science at
the University of Connecticut (and an expert on election systems and voting ballots),
has found that voting will be faster without the straight-party option. He has
determined that the ballot instituted by PA 268 is less confusing than the straight6

party ballot, and thus, the new ballot will save voters’ time. Dkt. No. 102-6, pp. 2–
3 (Pg. ID 1983–84). Herrnson also theorizes that, setting aside whether PA 268 will
increase voting times, voters will not be deterred by longer lines because voting is
driven by sociological factors, and not rational interests. Id. at p. 10 (Pg. ID 1991).
Put another way, he believes people will endure lines no matter how long because
voting is a social good. Id.
III.

Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “[a] court shall grant summary

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A court must view the
facts, and draw reasonable inferences from the facts, in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
No genuine dispute of material fact exists where the record “taken as a whole could
not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The key inquiry
is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to
a jury [fact-finder] or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a
matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251–52.

7

IV.

Discussion
Plaintiffs assert three claims. The first two claims arise under the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, restricting the right to vote (Count
I) and intentional discrimination (Count II). The third and final claim alleges a
violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (Count III). The Secretary requests
that the Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment on all three counts. The
Court will find that the Secretary is not entitled to summary judgment on any of
Plaintiffs’ claims.
Before turning to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court will first address
the Secretary’s argument that the Plaintiffs lack standing.
A.

Standing

The Secretary argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing for the same reasons
discussed in the Response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See
Dkt. No. 15, pp. 9–12 (Pg. ID 441–44); see also Dkt. No. 102, pp. 19–27 (Pg. ID
1776–84). Yet in granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the
Court held that the Plaintiffs have standing. Johnson I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 943–45.
Accordingly, the law of the case doctrine measures that the Secretary’s standing
argument must also fail here.
Under the law of the case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of law,
that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the
8

same case.” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983) (citation omitted). “
‘The doctrine precludes a court from reconsideration of issues decided at an early
stage of litigation, either explicitly or by necessary inference from the disposition.’
” Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1071 (6th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Westside Mothers v. Olszewski, 454 F.3d 532, 538 (6th Cir. 2006)). Three
exceptions apply to this doctrine and they arise: “ ‘(1) where substantially different
evidence is raised on subsequent trial; (2) where a subsequent contrary view of the
law is decided by the controlling authority; or (3) where a decision is clearly
erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’ ” Id. (quoting Hanover Ins. Co. v.
Am. Eng’g Co., 105 F.3d 306, 312 (6th Cir. 1997)).
None of these exceptions apply here. Indeed, the Defendant’s arguments
largely reiterate those made in the preliminary injunction briefings.
The Court will clarify that, as for the individual Plaintiffs, its holding in
Johnson I was that the African-American plaintiffs have standing; the Court did not
address whether Plaintiff Erin Comartin has standing. See Johnson I, 209 F. Supp.
3d. at 944. After reviewing the offered evidence, the Court will hold that Comartin
lacks standing because she has not shown injury in-fact. See United States v. Hall,
877 F.3d 676, 681 (6th Cir. 2017) (“Article III standing requires a party invoking
federal jurisdiction to demonstrate that it has suffered an injury in fact . . . which is
(a) concrete and particularized . . . (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
9

hypothetical”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because she is white,
Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the impact of PA 268 on African-Americans do not
apply to Comartin. See Dkt. No. 56, p. 5 (Pg. ID 1096). Instead, she alleges that PA
268 will deprive her of the “benefits of democracy.” Dkt. No. 102-13, p. 8 (Pg. ID
2111). Plaintiffs do not even defend this argument in their summary judgment
pleadings. See Dkt. No. 108, pp. 11–13 (Pg. ID 2341–43).
Therefore, as to all the other Plaintiffs, the Court finds that they have standing.
B.

Restrictions on the Right to Vote under the Equal Protection Clause

Plaintiffs raise a facial challenge to PA 268. See Crawford v. Marion Cty.
Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 200 (2008) (noting that parties “bear a heavy burden of
persuasion” where they “seek[] relief that would invalidate [a] statute in all its
applications.”). Plaintiffs argue, and the Court agrees, that reasonable minds may
disagree about whether Plaintiffs can prove an equal protection claim based on the
impact of PA 268 on African-Americans’ right to vote.
Because all election laws burden voters, even if slightly, “courts weigh that
hindrance against the provision’s regulatory justification.” Ne. Ohio Coal. for the
Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612, 630 (6th Cir. 2016). This balance recognizes
that “ ‘voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional
structure.’ ” Id. (quoting Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440
U.S. 173, 184 (1979)). But it also acknowledges that “ ‘[c]ommon sense, as well as
10

constitutional law, compels the conclusion that government must play an active role
in structuring elections.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992)). Courts must accordingly apply a “flexible standard”
when assessing the constitutionality of state election laws. This flexible standard
provides that:
A court . . . must weigh ‘the character and magnitude of the asserted
injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate’ against ‘the precise interests put
forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,’
taking into consideration ‘the extent to which those interests make it
necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.’
Id. (quoting Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434).
“[T]he ‘rigorousness of [a court’s] inquiry into the propriety of a state election
law,’ ” the Sixth Circuit wrote, “ ‘depends upon the extent to which a challenged
regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.’ ” Ohio Democratic
Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620, 627 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Burdick, 504 U.S. at
434). For example, “[i]f a state imposes ‘severe restrictions’ on a plaintiff’s
constitutional rights (here, the right to vote), its regulations survive only if ‘narrowly
drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.’ ” Id. (quoting Burdick,
504 U.S. at 434). Conversely, “ ‘minimally burdensome and nondiscriminatory’
regulations are subject to a ‘less-searching examination closer to rational basis’ and
‘the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify the
restrictions.’ ” Id. (quoting Ohio Council 8 Am. Fed’n of State v. Husted, 814 F.3d
11

329, 335 (6th Cir. 2016)). For state laws that touch neither end of the spectrum,
“i.e., regulations that impose a more-than-minimal but less-than-severe burden,”
courts are to “ ‘weigh[] the burden on the plaintiffs against the state’s asserted
interest and chosen means of pursuing it.’ ” Id. (quoting Green Party of Tenn. v.
Hargett, 767 F.3d 533, 546 (6th Cir. 2014)).
As detailed below, the Court finds that PA 268 imposes more than a minimal,
but not severe, burden on African-Americans. See also Johnson I, 209 F. Supp. 3d
at 947–48. According to the Secretary, the elimination of straight-ticket voting
impacts the manner of voting, but not access to the ballot. Dkt. No. 102, pp. 29–30
(Pg. ID 1786–87). “It is clear, however, that how a state chooses to regulate the
manner that a person must cast a ballot undoubtedly impacts the individual right.”
Johnson II, 833 F.3d at 663. Indeed, “[a] state election law, ‘whether it governs the
registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates,
or the voting process itself, inevitably affects—at least to some degree—the
individual’s right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.’ ”
Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433 (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788
(1983)).
1.

Burden on Voting

Plaintiffs argue there is a genuine dispute about the constitutionality of PA
268 because it imposes several burdens on voters, namely longer voting lines and
12

increased congestion at voting precincts, and greater confusion in completing the
ballot. Dkt. No. 56, p. 2 (Pg. ID 1093). And Plaintiffs assert that African-Americans
will disproportionately bear this burden. Id. at p. 20 (Pg. ID 1111). The Court will
first assess the burden that PA 268 imposes on Michigan voters in general before
addressing Plaintiffs’ arguments that PA 268 disproportionately burdens AfricanAmericans specifically.
PA 268 will not cause longer wait times as a matter of law, according to the
Secretary. The argument goes that the alleged collateral consequences of removing
the option for straight-party voting—persons deterred from voting because of longer
wait times and voter confusion leading to rejected ballots—are speculative injuries.
Dkt. No. 102, p. 32 (Pg. ID 1789). The Secretary first maintains that the record does
not reflect that voting in a state without straight-ticket voting takes longer than
voting in a state with straight-ticket voting. Id. at p. 33 (Pg. ID 1790). As the Sixth
Circuit noted, this is a false comparison: “Importantly, however, comparing the
isolated voting practice of one state with the isolated voting practice of another state
is not always an apples-to-apples comparison.” Johnson II, 833 F.3d at 665.
Outside of straight-ticket voting, states have instituted voting practices which
reduce voting times and are distinct from practices in Michigan. For instance, noexcuse absentee voting and early voting are available in Ohio, a state that does not
have straight-ticket voting. See OHIO REV. CODE § 3509.02(A); see also Ohio
13

Democratic Party, 834 F.3d at 625–26. On the other hand, Michigan does not allow
no-excuse absentee voting or early voting.3 Indeed, Michigan residents can only
vote absentee (and thereby avoid the polls) if they satisfy one of the following
narrow criteria:
(a) On account of physical disability, cannot without another’s
assistance attend the polls on the day of an election.
(b) On account of the tenets of his or her religion, cannot attend the
polls on the day of election.
(c) Cannot attend the polls on the day of an election in the precinct in
which he or she resides because of being an election precinct inspector
in another precinct.
(d) Is 60 years of age or older.
(e) Is absent or expects to be absent from the township or city in which
he or she resides during the entire period the polls are open for voting
on the day of an election.
(f) Cannot attend the polls on election day because of being confined in
jail awaiting arraignment or trial.
MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.758(1)(a)–(f). These differences show that the
Defendant’s reliance on other states’ elimination of straight-party voting is
misplaced.

3

See Michigan Dep’t of State, Elections & Voting: Early Voting, available at
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-29836-202483--F,00.html
(last
accessed January 18, 2018).
14

The Secretary next leans on an expert report from Stephen Graves to show it
will take longer to vote with a straight-party ballot than without because voters
ponder which party to support before voting. Dkt. No. 102-5, pp. 4, 16–17 (Pg. ID
1935, 1947–48). And she cites Paul Herrnson’s findings to demonstrate that the
straight-party voting option is confusing, causing voters to request assistance, and
this assistance extends voting times. Dkt. No. 102-6, pp. 18, 41–42 (Pg. ID 1999,
2022–23). Regarding requests for assistance, the Secretary asserts that current wait
times are exacerbated by requests from African-Americans with low literacy, as they
need greater assistance. Id. at pp. 41–42 (Pg. ID 2022–23).
This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, does not
prove as a matter of law that all of these collateral consequences are unlikely to
occur. Voters of course may ponder which party to support when straight-ticket
voting, but PA 268 is intended to encourage voters to consider not just party
affiliation, but each election contest individually. Contemplating whom to vote for
in every partisan contest on a ballot must take longer than deciding whether to vote
a straight-ticket for, say, either Republicans or Democrats.
And, Plaintiffs present evidence indicating that PA 268 will increase wait
times, including testimony from Christopher Thomas, a former Director of the
Bureau of Elections in Michigan who served in that capacity for thirty-six years. See
Dkt. No. 102-25, p. 3 (Pg. ID 2316). Thomas testified that he had estimated—in
15

conjunction with the elections staff and based in part on discussions with county
clerks and other election officials—that PA 268 could cause “up to a 3-minute
increase” in voting time for individuals who typically voted a straight-party ticket.
Dkt. No. 108-9, at p. 3 (Pg. ID 2550). Similarly, in its analysis of PA 268, the
Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency said that the Michigan Department of State
acknowledged that the bill “could cause an increase in the time it takes to vote due
to voters’ reading the new instructions as well as having to mark their vote for each
candidate.” Dkt. No. 1-13, p. 5 (Pg. ID 272).
Plaintiffs also present contrasting evidence in an expert report by Theodore
Allen. See Dkt. No. 108-4. Allen “estimate[d] that eliminating the option of straight
ticket voting would increase the service time of a voter who had previously used
straight ticket voting 25% or more.” Id. at p. 10 (Pg. ID 2497).
Additionally, as Plaintiffs note, common sense dictates that filling in several
ovals will take longer than filling in one. A report from the Michigan House Fiscal
Agency supports this common sense observation—it noted that the appropriation of
$5 million “would be allocated for new voting equipment purchased for local
governments that may be needed as a result of longer lines due to longer lines [sic]
with the elimination of the straight-ticket option.” Dkt. No. 108-13, p. 2 (Pg. ID
2617).

16

Plaintiffs further suggest that the additional time it will take to vote has an
important consequence: discouraging people from voting. The Secretary disagrees
and instead argues that people will vote no matter the obstacles. Dkt. No. 102, pp.
45–46 (Pg. ID 1803–04). The Secretary contends that because one vote will not
ordinarily determine an election, “the costs associated with voting almost always
outweigh the benefits.” Id. In other words, the Defendant argues that people vote
solely to obtain an intangible benefit, and because this benefit is intangible, voters
will visit polls despite it not being in their rational interest (i.e. worth voters’ time,
money, etc.). Id. The Secretary continues that “[e]ven if [a] voter took longer to
complete the ballot, Michigan does not limit the amount of time any voter has to
complete the ballot.” Id. at p. 33 (Pg. ID 1790).
These arguments are unpersuasive. A report by Charles Stewart III, a Political
Science Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is offered by the
Plaintiffs as contrasting evidence. See Dkt. No. 1-3. In this report, Stewart
concludes that longer voting lines discourage voting. Id. at p. 18 (Pg. ID 52).
Specifically, Stewart observed that 0.8% of respondents to a congressional study did
not vote in 2012 primarily because of long lines; and extrapolating this percentage
to the number of eligible voters that did not vote in the 2012 federal election, Stewart
determined that 730,000 people would have refrained from voting in that election
because of long lines. Id.
17

Likewise, Allen determined that the number of people discouraged from
voting could be gleaned through a 3% percent rule. Dkt. No. 108-4, p. 13 (Pg. ID
2500). He observed that “every additional 60 minutes of waiting time results in a
decline in turnout of approximately 3% of the remaining eligible voters (those who
are registered and who have not voted absentee).” Id. This theory is based on voter
conduct in Ohio and Florida, and not from Michigan. Id. at p. 13–14 (Pg. ID 2500–
01). Allen reasons that this theory would apply to Michigan voters, and so viewing
this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this evidence supports
Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, a question of fact exists about whether PA 268
would impose a burden of longer wait times on voters.
a)

Disproportionate Impact on African-Americans

There is also sufficient support in the record for Plaintiffs to survive summary
judgment on the issue of whether PA 268 disproportionately affects AfricanAmericans, including through the longer wait times PA 268 may cause. Plaintiffs
argue that African-Americans in Michigan both vote a straight-ticket at a higher rate
than non-black voters and face longer wait times to vote.
Turning first to Plaintiffs’ argument that African-Americans vote a straightticket at higher rates than other demographics, Plaintiffs offer evidence that 49.2%
of Michigan voters used straight-party voting in the 2016 general election. Dkt. No.
108-2, p. 9 (Pg. ID 2402). Yet in the 2016 general election, Plaintiffs assert that
18

68.9% of people in the seven communities in which African-Americans comprised
40-49.9% of the voting age population used straight-ticket voting. Id. What is more,
evidence indicates that 77.7% of individuals in the twelve communities where
African-Americans constitute a majority of the voting age population used straightparty voting in the 2016 general election. Id. And in the November of 2012 and
2014 elections, at least 75% of African-American voters, and possibly up to 80%,
used straight-ticket voting, according to the Plaintiffs. See Dkt. No. 1-11, pp. 10–13
(Pg. ID 228–31); see also Dkt. No. 56, p. 14 (Pg. ID 1105).
The Defendant counters unconvincingly. First, the Secretary’s argument—
that PA 268 impacts all Michigan voters, not just African-American voters—does
not address whether PA 268 disproportionately affects African-Americans. The
Defendant next contends that Metzger’s 2016 report is unreliable because it does not
include several counties with a high percentage of voters who use straight-party
voting, including Ottawa County, Washtenaw County, and Livingston County. Dkt.
No. 102, p. 42 (Pg. ID 1799); see also Dkt. No. 102-3, p. 21 (Pg. ID 1850). Relying
on the expert report of Laurence Rosen, a professional demographer, the Secretary
claims that straight-ticket voting is popular in communities where AfricanAmericans comprise a small (or no) percentage of the electorate. Dkt. No. 102-3,
pp. 16, 21 (Pg. ID 1845, 1850).

19

This of course may be true, given that reports suggest that African-Americans
comprise less than 1.0% of the voting age population in 74.5% of Michigan
communities. See Dkt. No. 108-2, p. 10 (Pg. ID 2403). But, Plaintiffs’ evidence—
that all communities in which African-Americans constitute a high portion of the
electorate demonstrate a strong preference for straight-ticket voting—is sufficient to
raise a question of fact about whether African-Americans would be
disproportionately impacted by PA 268. Dkt. No. 108, p. 20 (Pg. ID 2350); see also
Dkt. No. 108-8, p. 5 (Pg. ID 2542). In light of the above analysis, reasonable minds
may disagree about whether African-Americans will be disproportionately affected
by PA 268, including through facing longer wait times.
Plaintiffs also argue that PA 268 disproportionately burdens AfricanAmericans because it introduces a confusing ballot, which will lead to both more
rejected ballots and requests for assistance. Dkt. No. 56, p. 18 (Pg. ID 1109).
According to the Plaintiffs, the ballot authorized by PA 268 would be confusing as
it removes the straight-party option, but keeps the party vignettes at the top of the
ballot. Id. Plaintiffs submit that voters familiar with the party vignettes “will circle
the party they want or otherwise mark it, as they will see no other reason for
displaying the vignettes on the ballot.” Id. These votes, then, will be rejected and
more voters will request help, causing delay. Id. Plaintiffs’ expert Daphne Ntiri
found that African-Americans will be disproportionately affected by this confusion
20

because African-Americans in Michigan have lower literacy rates than other
demographics. See Dkt. No. 108-5, pp. 17–19 (Pg. ID 2526–28).
The Secretary responds that the straight-party ballot is confusing. But even if
true, the Court finds it cannot conclude as a matter of law that PA 268 would
eliminate confusion about the ballot: The PA 268 ballot includes the same party
vignettes as the current ballot, but would not allow straight-ticket voting. Indeed,
the Sixth Circuit acknowledged “the new confusion that PA 268 will likely cause.”
Johnson II, 833 F.3d at 666.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ contention that PA 268 may impose a burden of
confusion on African-American voters in Michigan has merit.
2.

Regulatory Justification

As the Court has assessed the character and magnitude of the alleged burden
on voters, the Court will now examine the justifications offered by the Secretary,
and whether these justifications warrant the alleged burden as a matter of law. The
Secretary explains that PA 268 is intended first to “encourage the electorate to
become more educated about the candidates, more fully involved in the democratic
process, and more deliberate in their voting choices.” Dkt. No. 102, p. 48 (Pg. ID
1805) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

A secondary concern is

encouraging voters to complete the non-partisan section of the ballot. Id.

21

There is a genuine dispute about whether the first rationale justifies the
burden. There is little evidence in the record that straight-party voting is not an
informed choice or that straight-party voting demonstrates a lack of involvement in
the democratic process. And the record does not contain ample evidence that voters
will be more informed or more deliberate in their choices because of PA 268. The
PA 268 ballot will still contain party vignettes, and so, Michigan residents can still
vote solely based on party affiliation. See Johnson I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 949; see
also Dkt. No. 56, p. 16 (Pg. ID 1107). Therefore, the Sixth Circuit’s observation
about this justification applies with equal force here: “[A] voter desiring to vote for
all of the candidates of his or her desired political party may still do so without
reading any of the candidates’ names, without knowing the office for which the
candidate is running, and without knowing a single fact about either—the only
change, as the state admits, will be that a voter now “ ‘can’t do it through one
bubble.’ ” Johnson II, 833 F.3d at 666 (quoting Dkt. No. 26, pp. 31–32 (Pg. ID 773–
74)).
Second, the Defendant has also not established as a matter of law that the
State’s interest in encouraging voters to complete the entire ballot outweighs the risk
that PA 268 will cause such long lines that some people will not bother to vote.
Indeed, it is not clear that PA 268 will increase ballot completion. Dkt. No. 108-3,
p. 24–27 (Pg. ID 2481–84). To the contrary, Plaintiffs contend that voters using the
22

straight-party option are more likely to complete a ballot than voters not using the
option. Specifically, there is evidence that straight-party voters are more likely to
complete the non-partisan section of the ballot because they have less “voter fatigue”
than voters who do not vote straight-party. Id. This voter fatigue theory is bolstered
by the large number of candidates on Michigan ballots. See Dkt. No. 102, pp. 35–
36 (Pg. ID 1792–93). The Secretary concedes that Michigan voters must vote for a
“large number” of offices, explaining that Detroit voters had to fill in thirty-seven
bubbles on just the non-partisan section of the 2016 ballot. Id.
Third, the Secretary unconvincingly argues—as in the Response to Plaintiffs’
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction—that because most states do not have straightticket voting, PA 268 modernizes Michigan election law. But whether other states
have straight-party voting does not determine the constitutionality of PA 268. See
Johnson I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 948–49 (“If the Ohio Legislature successfully
instituted poll-taxes and literacy tests without challenge, it would not change the fact
that poll-taxes and literacy tests are still clearly unconstitutional burdens on the right
to vote.”).
Even assuming that a comparison of Michigan’s voting practices with other
states’ practices is a “potentially valuable tool” here, this comparison does not assist
the Secretary. See Ohio Democratic Party, 834 F.3d at 629. The Defendant notes,
for example, that Rhode Island eliminated straight-party voting in 2014. See Dkt.
23

No. 102, p. 57 (Pg. ID 1814). Rhode Island in 2014 allowed no-excuse voting by
mail, however. See 1956 R.I. GEN. LAWS § 17-20-2(4) (providing that a person is
eligible to vote by mail if the person “may not be able to vote at his or her polling
place in his or her city or town on the day of the election.”). Michigan of course
does not permit no-excuse absentee voting and authorizes absentee voting in only
limited circumstances. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.758(1)(a)–(f).
Accordingly, whether PA 268 unlawfully restricts African-Americans’ right
to vote is an issue for trial.
3.

Legal Challenges to Straight-Party Voting

Lacking evidence to prove the absence of a factual dispute here, the Secretary
cites two cases and maintains that a law removing straight-party voting is always
constitutional because no court has struck down a law on the grounds that it
eliminated straight-party voting. The Court disagrees and the cases cited in support
are inapposite.
The Secretary first cites to League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina,
769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014), but concedes the removal of straight-party voting went
unchallenged in this case. She then relies heavily on One Wisc. Inst., Inc. v.
Thomsen, 198 F. Supp. 3d 896, 946 (W.D. Wisc. 2016), but this case, too, is
distinguishable. In Thomsen, the court held that the elimination of straight-ticket
voting in Wisconsin did not offend the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. There, an expert
24

witness failed to present evidence in support of his claim that the elimination of
straight-ticket voting would cause longer lines, and thus, Wisconsin voters “faced
only a slight burden on the right to vote.” Id. at 945–46. Notably, the court
concluded that “plaintiffs’ evidence is entirely anecdotal and mainly establishes only
that African Americans and Latinos would prefer to use straight-ticket voting.” Id.
at 957. Plaintiffs’ evidence here, by contrast, is not “entirely anecdotal”: They have
submitted several expert reports and lay testimony indicating that AfricanAmericans vote a straight-party ticket at significantly higher rates than others, and
that voting will take longer without a straight-party option. See Dkt. Nos. 108-2,
108-3, 108-9.
In citing Thomsen, the Secretary again incorrectly compares the voting
schemes of two states with different practices. See generally Thomsen, 198 F. Supp.
3d 896. For example, when Thomsen was decided, Wisconsin allowed absentee
voting “for any reason,” which Michigan does not. See WIS. STAT. ANN. § 6.85; see
also Dkt. No. 102-8. Rather, as detailed here above, Michigan narrowly restricts
absentee voting. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.758(1)(a)–(f).
Third, Thomsen was decided after a trial, and not at the summary judgment
stage. At the summary judgment stage, this Court must view the facts in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiffs.

25

In light of the foregoing analysis, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim under the
Anderson/Burdick framework will survive the motion for summary judgment.
C.

Intentional Discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause

Plaintiffs also mount an equal protection challenge alleging that PA 268 was
enacted with discriminatory intent. The Court will find that the evidence for this
claim is sufficient to proceed to trial.
“ ‘Facially neutral laws can be motivated by invidious racial discrimination.’
” Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612, 636 (6th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266
(1977)). To assess whether a facially neutral law was indeed motivated by racial
discrimination, “courts must undertake a ‘sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial
and direct evidence of intent as may be available.’ ” Id. (quoting Arlington Heights,
429 U.S. at 266). This doctrine does not mandate that a plaintiff show racial
discrimination was “the law’s ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ purpose.” Id. (quoting
Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266). Rather, “[c]hallengers need to show only that
discriminatory purpose was ‘a motivating factor.’ ” Id. (quoting Arlington Heights,
429 U.S. at 266).
“[E]vidence of a policy’s disparate impact may be probative in determining
whether the policymaker harbored a discriminatory intent.” Spurlock v. Fox, 716
F.3d 383, 400 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Arlington Heights., 429 U.S. at 266). This
26

evidence is, of course, not dispositive. See id. at 401 (“ ‘Disproportionate impact is
not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination
forbidden by the Constitution.’ ” (quoting Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242
(1976))). In Arlington Heights, the Supreme Court instructed courts to consider:
‘[t]he historical background of the decision[,] . . . particularly if it
reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes’; ‘[t]he
specific sequence of events leading up the challenged decision’;
‘[d]epartures from the normal procedural sequence’; ‘[s]ubstantive
departures[,] ... particularly if the factors usually considered important
by the decisionmaker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one
reached’; and the ‘legislative or administrative history[,] . . . especially
where there are contemporary statements by members of the
decisionmaking body, minutes of its meetings, or reports.’
Id. at 398 (alterations in original) (quoting Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267–68).4
Engaging in this inquiry here, the Court will find that this claim survives the
motion for summary judgment.

Addressing the first factor, the historical

background of the decision, as discussed above, the record reveals evidence
signaling that PA 268 will have a discriminatory impact on African-Americans. This
consideration, although not controlling, weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Next the Court must analyze the specific sequence of events leading up to
enacting the law. The Secretary argues that this factor should weigh in her favor
despite conceding that in prior years the elimination of straight-party voting was

4

The third factor—if there were departures, procedurally or substantively, from the
ordinary workings of the legislature in enacting this bill—does not offer insight into
the dispute.
27

“somewhat politically unpopular.” Dkt. No. 102, p. 52 (Pg. ID 1809). Indeed,
Michigan voters twice repealed laws removing the practice, once in 1964 and again
in 2001. See Dkt. No. 56, pp. 12–13 (Pg. ID 1103–04). A referendum on PA 268 is
unavailable to Michigan voters, as it contains an appropriation. See Mich. United
Conservation Clubs v. Sec’y of State, 464 Mich. 359, 630 N.W.2d 297 (2001).
Moreover, almost a majority of Michigan voters still vote a straight-party ticket—
49.2% in the 2016 general election, according to the Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 108-2, p. 9
(Pg. ID 2402).

This consideration measures against granting the Defendant

summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ intentional discrimination claim.
The final factor involves an examination of the legislative and administrative
history of PA 268. This consideration is neutral—the parties are engaging in
additional discovery as to subpoenas directed at current and former Michigan state
legislators. See Dkt. No. 119. The record contains evidence helpful to Plaintiffs,
but not enough evidence for the Court to conclude that this factor favors them over
the Secretary. Specifically, Plaintiffs present persuasive testimony from the chair of
the Michigan Republican Party in 2015, Ronna Romney McDaniel. See Dkt. No.
108-15. McDaniel said that she thought PA 268 was good policy, but conceded that
she knew it would benefit Republican Party candidates to the detriment of
Democratic Party candidates. Id. at p. 7 (Pg. ID 2632).

28

Even if this last factor weighed in the Secretary’s favor, after balancing all of
the considerations, the Court will hold that the Defendant is not entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiffs’ intentional discrimination claim.
D.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

The Court is persuaded that a question of fact exists about whether PA 268
violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Neutral state action, the Supreme Court held, was not covered under Section
2 of the Voting Rights Act as it was originally enacted. See City of Mobile v. Bolden,
446 U.S. 55 (1980). Congress then amended Section 2 and this amendment
established that a showing of intentional discrimination was no longer required to
prove a Section 2 claim. Ohio Democratic Party, 834 F.3d at 636 (citing Moore v.
Detroit Sch. Reform Bd., 293 F.3d 352, 363 (6th Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, “ ‘a
violation [of Section 2] could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone.’ ”
Ne. Ohio Coal., 837 F.3d at 626 (alteration in original) (quoting Thornburg v.
Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 35 (1986)). In its current form, Section 2 provides that:
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or
political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth
in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).
(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality
of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to
nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not
29

equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected
by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other
members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to
elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a
protected class have been elected to office in the State or political
subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided,
That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a
protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the
population.
52 U.S.C. § 10301.
This section authorizes claims for either vote dilution or vote denial. Ne. Ohio
Coal., 837 F.3d at 626. Plaintiffs here raise a challenge based on vote denial, and
the standard for denial claims is not well-developed. Id. (explaining that the
Supreme Court has established the test for vote dilution claims, but not for vote
denial claims).
The Sixth Circuit has seemingly approved the following two-part test for vote
denial claims: 5

5

The Sixth Circuit in Ne. Ohio Coal. cites this test, but does not confirm its validity.
See 837 F.3d at 626–27. The court noted that the decision originally detailing this
framework was vacated. See Ohio State Conference of the NAACP v. Husted, 768
F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2014). It was vacated because the injunctive order in that case
was stayed by the Supreme Court and the order only applied to the then upcoming
election. See Husted v. Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P., ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.
Ct. 42 (2014) (staying preliminary injunction); see also Ohio State Conference of
the NAACP v. Husted, No. 14–3877, 2014 WL 10384647 (6th Cir. Oct. 1, 2014)
(vacating opinion). The Ne. Ohio Coal. court noted, however, that the Sixth Circuit
panel in Ohio Democratic Party, 834 F.3d 620, found this test useful (with some
clarification) in addressing a Section 2 vote denial claim. See Ne. Ohio Coal., 837
F.3d at 627. Accordingly, this Court will apply the standard described by Ne. Ohio
Coal. and Ohio Democratic Party.
30

[t]he challenged standard, practice, or procedure must impose a
discriminatory burden on members of a protected class, meaning that
members of the protected class have less opportunity than other
members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to
elect representatives of their choice, and (2) that burden must in part be
caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that have or
currently produce discrimination against members of the protected
class.
See Ne. Ohio Coal., 837 F.3d at 626–27 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“[T]he first element of the Section 2 claim,” the Sixth Circuit emphasized,
“requires proof that the challenged standard or practice causally contributes to the
alleged discriminatory impact by affording protected group members less
opportunity to participate in the political process.” Ohio Democratic Party, 834 F.3d
at 637–38. Only if a plaintiff has satisfied this first step, can a district court proceed
to the second step. See id. at 638.
Step two of this framework “trigger[s] consideration of the ‘totality of
circumstances,’ potentially informed by the ‘Senate Factors’ discussed in Gingles.”
Id. (referencing Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47–52 (1986)). Under the
second step, a court evaluating a facially neutral law must determine whether “a
disparate impact in the opportunity to vote is shown to result not only from operation
of the law, but from the interaction of the law and social and historical conditions
that have produced discrimination.” Id.
The Sixth Circuit summarized the two-part test as instructing that “[PA 268]
is actionable as a Section 2 violation only if it is shown to causally contribute, as it
31

interacts with social and historical conditions that have produced discrimination, to
a disparate impact on African Americans’ opportunity to participate in the political
process.” Id. at 639 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a)–(b)).
Applying this standard here, the Court finds that a reasonable person could
conclude that PA 268 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
1.
PA 268 and African-Americans’ Opportunity to Participate in
the Political Process
Invoking the first step, Plaintiffs argue African-Americans utilize straightparty voting at a higher rate than other demographics and, as PA 268 will increase
the time it takes to vote, PA 268 will make it increasingly difficult for AfricanAmericans to participate in the political process through voting. Dkt. No. 108, pp.
50–51 (Pg. ID 2380–81). In his amended report, Metzger concluded that there is a
“high correlation between the racial composition of the voting-age population
(percent African American) and the use of the straight party voting option,” even
after controlling for certain other considerations that may impact the use of straightparty voting. Dkt. No. 108-2, pp. 8–9 (Pg. ID 2401–02). Metzger further posited
“that communities where African Americans of voting age were in the majority are
significantly more likely to cast a straight party ballot than those where African
Americans represent less than 50 percent of the voting-age population.” Id. at p. 10
(Pg. ID 2403). Plaintiffs supplement Metzger’s findings with Allen’s expert report.
Dkt. No. 108-4. Allen determined that the longer wait lines caused by PA 268 would
32

disproportionately impact African-American voters, depriving thousands of
African-Americans of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Id.
at p. 18 (Pg. ID 2505).
In Ne. Ohio Coal., for example, the Sixth Circuit determined that plaintiffs
failed to prove disparate impact at trial, in part, because their expert “found that the
evidence to support the conclusion that high-minority counties use absentee ballots
more heavily was ‘not very strong.’ ” 837 F.3d at 627. On the other hand, the expert
evidence relied on by Plaintiffs uniformly suggests (1) that a strong correlation exists
between the percentage of African-Americans of voting age in a community and the
percentage of straight-party voters in that community; and (2) that longer voting
lines will result from PA 268.
The Secretary responds unconvincingly, reasoning that PA 268 “merely
requires that every voter affirmatively vote for each candidate he or she wishes to
support, and does not prevent anyone from participation in the political process.”
Dkt. No. 102, pp. 57–58 (Pg. ID 1814–15). The issue here, however, is not whether
PA 268 bars African-Americans from voting. Of course, if PA 268 precluded all
African-Americans from voting, its constitutionality would be an easy question.
Rather, the Court must examine whether PA 268 disproportionately affects AfricanAmericans’ ability to participate in the political process.
detailed, have presented a question of fact on that question.
33

Plaintiffs, as above

The Court will accordingly proceed to step two of the Section 2 framework.
2.

Gingles Factors and the Totality of the Circumstances

The second part of this framework entails evaluating the totality of the
circumstances and determining if reasonable minds may disagree about “whether the
challenged voting standard or practice causes the discriminatory impact as it
interacts with social and historical conditions.” Ohio Democratic Party, 834 F.3d at
639 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a)–(b)). The Court finds that the record reveals a
genuine dispute on this issue.
Informing this analysis are the Gingles factors:
1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or
political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the
minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the
democratic process;
2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political
subdivision is racially polarized;
3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used
unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, antisingle shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may
enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;
4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the
minority group have been denied access to that process;
5. the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or
political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as
education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to
participate effectively in the political process;

34

6. whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or
subtle racial appeals;
7. the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected
to public office in the jurisdiction.
...
[8.] whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of
elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the
minority group.
[9.] whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision’s
use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard,
practice or procedure is tenuous.
Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36–37.
The Court assessed the Gingles factors in Johnson I, and the results are nearly
the same after scrutinizing each factor again here. But, given the evidence submitted
to the Court since Johnson I, the Court must explain its reasoning.
To start, several of these factors—factors one, three and four—are not
relevant, as the Court determined in Johnson I. 6 See 209 F. Supp. 3d at 951. The
Court will address the relevant factors in turn.

6

The Defendant incorrectly argues that because these factors do not weigh in favor
of the Plaintiffs, they must weigh in favor of the Defendants. These factors,
however, are not either-or propositions. For example, all agree that Michigan does
not have a candidate slating process (factor four), and thus, the Court cannot credit
the Defendant for the absence of discrimination in a process that does not exist.
35

a)
Factor Two: The extent to which voting in the elections
of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized.
Plaintiffs have presented evidence that voting in Michigan is racially
polarized. According to a Pew Research Center poll cited by the Plaintiffs, “87% of
black voters identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with
just 7% who identify as Republican or lean Republican.” PEW RESEARCH CENTER,
The Parties on the Eve of the 2016 Election: Two Coalitions, Moving Further Apart,
(Sept.

13,

2016),

http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-

among-voters-1992-2016/ [hereinafter TWO COALITIONS, MOVING FURTHER
APART]; see also Dkt. No. 108-2, p. 25 (Pg. ID 2418). Conversely, “54% of white
registered voters identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP, while just 39%
affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.” TWO COALITIONS, MOVING
FURTHER APART. Even if there is less disparity between these percentages in
Michigan specifically, these country-wide figures suggest that there is racially
polarized voting in Michigan.
b)
Factor Five: The extent to which members of the minority
group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of
discrimination in such areas as education, employment and
health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the
political process.
The record, and in particular Metzger’s amended report, indicates the impact
of discrimination in each of these areas. See Dkt. No. 108-2, pp. 13–24 (Pg. ID
2406–17).

In addition, Ntiri found that African-Americans had experienced
36

discrimination in education, and one result of this discrimination is lower literacy
rates for African-Americans as compared to whites. Dkt. No. 108-5, pp. 2, 14–15
(Pg. ID 2511, 2523–24). Ntiri also concluded that discrimination in education is
connected to “substandard schooling, economic and social hardships, and the
longstanding racial achievement gap.” Id.
In the face of this evidence, the Secretary attacks Ntiri’s credibility, but does
not offer evidence to the contrary. See Dkt. No. 114, p. 6 (Pg. ID 2695). As a result,
this factor weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.
c)
Factor Six: Whether political campaigns have been
characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals.
Plaintiffs’ assertions regarding the occurrence of overt or subtle racial appeals
fail, according to the Secretary, because they are based on outdated articles,
specifically articles from 2004 and 2012. Dkt. No. 102, p. 62 (Pg. ID 1819); see
Dkt. No. 4, pp. 49–50 (Pg. ID 366–67). Instead, the Secretary contends that
Plaintiffs are required to show such evidence in the 2016 election. Dkt. No. 102, p.
62 (Pg. ID 1819). The Court finds that this argument lacks merit, and Plaintiffs’
citation of these articles is not problematic because of the dates of these articles. See
Dkt. No. 4, pp. 49–50 (Pg. ID 366–67). Moreover, this Court has previously
acknowledged racial appeals in 2016 political campaigns. See Johnson I, 209 F.
Supp. 3d at 952–53.

37

d)
Factor Seven: The extent to which members of the
minority group have been elected to public office in the
jurisdiction.
For this consideration, the parties rehash the same arguments offered in the
pleadings on the preliminary injunction. Namely, that this factor should weigh in
favor of the Defendant first because Michigan has elected African-Americans to
various judicial positions, and most notably, to Chief Justice of the Michigan
Supreme Court. The weight of this fact is diminished because designations on
ballots signaling incumbent candidates for judicial positions make it easier for these
candidates to win reelection. See MICH. CONST. art. 6, § 24 (West, Westlaw through
Nov. 2016 amendments). The Secretary notes second that former President Barack
Obama twice carried Michigan. Plaintiffs, on other the hand, argue that this factor
should be resolved in their favor as Michigan has elected only one African-American
to a statewide partisan office.
Balancing these arguments, the Court again finds that this factor is neutral.
See Johnson I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 953.
e)
Factor Eight: Whether there is a significant lack of
responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the
particularized needs of the members of the minority group.
As with factor seven, the parties do not present new evidence on this point.
Yet the Court acknowledges that recent developments measure in favor of Plaintiffs:
The 13th Congressional District, a majority African-American and heavily-leaning
38

Democratic district,7 will not have a representative in Congress for nearly one year.
This illustrates a substantial lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to
the specific needs of the minority community in this district.
Thus, the Court concludes that, unlike in Johnson I, this factor weighs in
Plaintiffs’ favor. See id. at 953–54 (noting that Plaintiffs’ reference to the Flint water
crisis, standing alone, was insufficient to show this factor weighed in their favor,
because of the state government’s substantial support to Detroit during its
bankruptcy).
f)
Factor Nine: Whether the policy underlying the state or
political subdivision’s use of such voting qualification,
prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is
tenuous.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that this consideration should be resolved
in their favor because Michigan is attempting to remove straight-ticket voting after
authorizing its use for over 126 years, and voters twice repealed by referendum the
elimination of straight-party voting. See Dkt. No. 108, p. 57 (Pg. ID 2387).

7

See Michigan Dep’t of State, Office of Governor Rick Snyder: Gov. Rick Snyder
announces special election dates for 13th Congressional District, available at
http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-80388_80397-454755--,00.html
(last accessed January 18, 2018); see also United States Census Bureau, My
Congressional District, available at https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=26&cd=13
(last accessed January 18, 2018); see also Paul Egan, Snyder sets Aug. 7, Nov. 6
election dates to replace John Conyers in Congress, DETROIT FREE PRESS, available
at
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/12/08/johnconyers-special-election-congress/934206001/ (last accessed January 18, 2018).
39

The Gingles factors are just one component of the analysis; the Court must
also examine the totality of the circumstances. In doing so, the Court will hold that
the evidence warrants a trial about “whether [PA 268] causes the discriminatory
impact as it interacts with social and historical conditions.” Ohio Democratic Party,
834 F.3d at 639.
First, evidence in the record indicates that African-Americans will be
disparately impacted by the longer voting lines caused by PA 268. This impact is
linked to historical discrimination in education, which has led to lower literacy rates
among African-Americans as compared to whites. And, these lower literacy rates
interact with PA 268 by making it more challenging for African-Americans to
complete the ballot. This challenge could lead to confusion that causes longer
waiting lines and more spoiled ballots.
Second, historical discrimination in housing is reflected in Michigan through
segregated communities, according to evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs. See Dkt.
No. 108-2, pp. 10–11 (Pg. ID 2403–04). If African-Americans are largely voting in
the same precincts, then they will be disproportionately affected by the longer wait
times PA 268 will introduce.
Finally, racial appeals in campaigns—whether direct or subtle—have led to
increasing political polarization based on race. Id. at p. 25 (Pg. ID 2418). Plaintiffs,
for example, cite to a report which explains that “[i]n urban local elections, race is a
40

more decisive factor than income, education, religion, sexual orientation, age,
gender, and political ideology.” Khalilah Brown‐Dean et al., 50 Years of the Voting
Rights Act the State of Race in Politics, JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL
ECONOMIC

STUDIES,

March

3,

AND

2015,

http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/VRA%20report%2C%203.5.15%20%2811
30%20am%29%28updated%29.pdf. Moreover, evidence in the record indicates that
African-Americans overwhelming support the Democratic Party, and this support is
partly motivated by opposition to racial appeals allegedly carried out by the
Republican Party. See generally TWO COALITIONS, MOVING FURTHER APART; see
also Johnson I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 954.
Because Plaintiffs have presented evidence that PA 268 will causally
contribute, through linkage to social and historical discrimination, to a disparate
impact on African-Americans’ opportunity to vote, the Defendant is not entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Section 2 claim.
V.

Conclusion
The Court will DENY the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [102].

The Court will deny the Defendant’s motion on Plaintiffs’ claims for restricting the
right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count
I), intentional discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

41

Amendment (Count II), and violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (Count
III).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 19, 2018

/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 19, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Tanya Bankston
Deputy Clerk

42