(Source: MIRS.news, Published Sept. 8, 2022) Proposals to enshrine abortion into the state Constitution and on expanding voting rights will be on the November ballot, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In 5-2 opinions, the court held that the Board of State Canvassers' duty is limited to whether there are sufficient signatures to warrant certification, and it ordered the board to place both Promote the Vote 2022 (PTV22) and Reproductive Freedom For All's (RFFA) questions on the Nov. 8 ballot.
Chief Justice Bridget McCormack chastised those who suggested lack of spacing between words in the RFFA proposal should be a fatal flaw, specifically noting that two BSC members – Republicans Tony Daunt and Richard Houskamp, who she doesn't name – tried to keep the petition from voters on an alleged technical violation.
"They would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad," the Democratic-nominated justice wrote in her concurring opinion. "What a sad marker of the times."
Fellow Democrats Megan Cavanagh, Elizabeth Welch and Richard Bernstein concurred as did Republican-nominated Justice Elizabeth Clement.
Bernstein, who the GOP called on to disqualify himself due to personal and family financial contributions to the voting initiative, wrote separately to acknowledge his "consistent belief in the importance of elections in our representative democracy."
Republican Justices David Viviano and Brian Zahra dissented, agreeing that spacing on the RFFA proposal made it illegible.
“As a wordsmith and a member of Michigan’s court of last resort, a court that routinely scrutinizes in great detail the words used in statutes and constitutional provisions, I find it an unremarkable proposition that spaces between words matter," Zahra wrote.
Zahra took exception with Bernstein's position, suggesting it "ignores the requirements of our election law, which is predisposed against granting ballot access where the Board of State Canvassers fails to grant certification."
Bernstein, who is blind, fired back in a footnote: "Justice Zahra notes that, as a wordsmith and a member of this court, he finds it 'an unremarkable proposition that spaces between words matter.' As a blind person who is also a wordsmith and a member of this Court, I find it unremarkable to note that the lack of visual spacing has never mattered much to me."
The Board of State Canvassers deadlocked along party lines on whether to approve PTV22 and RFFA's separate proposals.
Christen Pollo, of Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, who opposes the abortion rights proposal, said the court gave the "green light today to adding 60 new mistakes to the constitution."
"It falls to voters now to reject this mistake-ridden, extreme proposal on Election Day," Pollo said. "We are confident that a majority will say No to Proposal 3. It authorizes abortions up until the moment of birth, while sweeping away every law designed to impose common sense limits on abortions, such as parental consent, and health and safety regulations on abortion clinics.
"This would become part of our constitution permanently, and no matter how much it endangered the health and safety of our children, we’d be stuck with it. We urge voters to say No on Nov. 8," Pollo added.
RFFA turned in more than 753,700 signatures – they needed about 425,000 – and the Bureau of Elections determined that nearly 597,000 signatures were valid based on a sampling process.
Challengers argued the RFFA proposal had spacing issues between words that made the ballot petition nonsensical.
Promote The Vote
PTV22 applauded the decision, saying the court saw through the "baseless and ridiculous claims of our opposition."
Defend Your Vote challenged certification of the PTV22 proposal, arguing at the BSC meeting that the group failed to include five provisions of the Constitution that the proposal would allegedly void if voters passed the measure.
PTV22 would, in part, recognize a “fundamental right to vote without harassing conduct;” require military or overseas ballots to be counted, if postmarked by Election Day; and provide voters the right to verify identity with photo ID or signed statement.
McCormack said the legal question of whether the PTV22 petition violates the constitution because its substance abrogates various provisions of the Constitution without stating the impacted provisions is "far outside" the BSC's role and expertise.
"Absent an insufficient number of signatures or a petition form that doesn't comply with unambiguous statutory requirements, the Board lacks the authority to refuse to certify a petition," McCormack wrote. "Because the challenger here alleged neither of those defects, the Board had a duty to certify the petition."
Welch concurred, noting that the proposed constitutional amendments "will not, if adopted, abrogate any existing constitutional provisions that the challenger claims should have been republished." As a result, the BSC had a "clear legal duty to certify the petition."
Zahra disagreed with Welch's position, noting that the proposal seeks to amend the constitution to "expressly prohibit the Legislature from enacting a law that would deny qualified electors the fundamental right to vote."
Reactions To Rulings
Reaction to the opinion was swift with praise coming from the Michigan Democratic Party, Progress Michigan and former House Minority Leader Sam SINGH, who is running for the Senate's 28th District seat.
U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D) called it the "right thing," and urged voters to "vote for personal freedom."
The Committee to Protect Health Care also praised the decision with Dr. Timothy JOHNSON, a specialist in high risk obstetrics in Ann Arbor, saying Michigan doctors "look forward to Reproductive Freedom for All being passed in November so that we can continue to help our patients make the deeply personal and private decisions around pregnancy and abortion, without politicians deciding for them."
Attorney General Dana Nessel expressed appreciation for the court's "swift action," noting the constitution provides "direct access to the democratic process and that access should not be limited by appointed individuals beyond the scope of their duty."
The court needed to decide before Friday – when local clerks must finalize the candidates and issues appearing on the ballot.
