Michigan Republican Party v. Benson
November 14, 2024
By: William & Mary Student Contributor
On October 8th, 2024, the Michigan Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging guidance issued in compliance with MCL 168.759(3) by the Michigan Secretary of state. This guidance extends the right to vote in Michigan’s elections to US citizens living abroad who have never resided in Michigan but have “a parent, legal guardian, or spouse” who have.
Plaintiffs argue that this guidance is inconsistent with the residency requirements in the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and it violates the state constitution. They say that while UOCAVA preempts Michigan law regarding the states requirement that you must presently reside In the state to vote, it does not require states to allow persons to vote who have never resided in Michigan. Their argument points to the wording of UOCAVA specifically these sections that discuss who is covered by the act; “an absent uniformed services voter who, by reason of active duty or service is absent from the United States” and “a person who resides outside the United States and is qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States”. The inclusion of “absent” and “before leaving the United States”, they say, shows that the UOCAVA was only meant to apply to overseas citizens who have lived in the United States at some point.
The second part of the argument made by plaintiff relies on the language in the Michigan constitution. The Michigan constitution requires a person to reside in the state for at least 6 months to be eligible to vote. The logic follows that since the state’s constitutional requirement is not preempted by the UOCAVA, and the state constitution is superior to state statutory law, the Secretary of State should have followed the state constitutions 6-month requirement and not the state statute.
The Michigan Court of Claims granted defendants motion for summary judgement on October 21, 2024. In its opinion, the court addressed both the procedural and merit-based arguments in this case. It began by finding the suit was untimely and barred by laches (a legal rule barring claims brought after unreasonable delay) because the Guidance being challenged has been around since 2017 and the plaintiffs waited to bring this case until less than a month remained before the election. Despite finding for the defendants on procedural grounds, the court decided to address the merits of the case. It pointed out that the state constitutional 6-month residency requirement is unconstitutional because in Dunn v Blumstein, the US supreme court found similar restrictions to be unconstitutional. In the absence of this requirement, the Michigan constitution gives the legislature the power to define residency therefore the Secretary of State’s action was in line with both the constitutional and statutory requirements within Michigan.
To the 16,000 oversees voters who could have potentially been disenfranchised, this ruling has great significance. The fight over overseas voter eligibility has some normative support in the form of wanting those voting in a state to have some proverbial skin in the game. But the timing of the challenge, in a swing state that is close, colors this debate in an inherently political light.