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

Filing 30

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHIGAN STATE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH
INSTITUTE, COMMON CAUSE,
MARY LANSDOWN, ERIN COMARTIN
and DION WILLIAMS,

Case No. 16-cv-11844

Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MONA K. MAJZOUB

RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity
as Michigan Secretary of State,
Defendant.
/

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Court having reviewed the Complaint, the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, the Brief in Support, the Defendant’s Response in Opposition and the
Reply in Support, along with all the exhibits attached to the pleadings filed by
Plaintiffs; and consistent with this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction entered on July 21, 2016;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

Defendant is hereby temporarily restrained and enjoined, directly or
indirectly, from:
(a)

Enforcing Public Act 268 in any manner that prevents Michigan
citizens from exercising the option to use straight-party voting.

-1-

(2)

The Court finds that:
(a)

P.A. 268 disproportionately burdens the right to vote of African
Americans. The espoused state interests do not justify the
burden, and thus P.A. 268 is likely unconstitutional.
Furthermore, P.A. 268 disparately impacts the AfricanAmerican community by lengthening the time necessary to
complete a ballot, and thus creating longer lines at polling
places and reducing voter access to the polls. Therefore, P.A.
268 is also likely in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act.

(b)

It is satisfied based on the evidence presented that it clearly
appears from the specific facts shown by the Complaint that
immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs, should
this Preliminary Injunction not issue.

(c)

This Order for Preliminary Injunction has been entered after the
issues were fully briefed and argued on July 14, 2016 because
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs if a Preliminary Injunction is
denied outweighs the harm to Defendant if it is granted.
Further, the public interest in protecting the right to vote and
preserving the status quo justifies the issuance of this Order.

(3)

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), the Court
may, in its discretion, require Plaintiffs to give security in an amount
that the Court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained
by Defendant if found to have been wrongfully enjoined. Moltan Co.
v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 55 F.3d 1171, 1176 (6th Cir. 1995).
However, the Court finds Defendants will not be damaged by the
preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court declines to require
security.

(4)

This Preliminary Injunction shall remain in full force and effect until
further order of this Court.

-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2016

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to
their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on August 1, 2016.

s/Shawna Burns on behalf of Tanya R. Bankston
TANYA R. BANKSTON
Case Manager & Deputy Clerk

-3-