CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 1

Consequences of an Early Primary 

Hayes v. Michigan Democratic Party 

(Robert J. Jonker, W.D. Mich. 1:07-cv-1237) 

A party member filed a federal complaint challenging the state 

Democratic Party’s early primary election in violation of national 

party rules, claiming injury because her preferred candidate decided 

not to participate in the primary. It was over two weeks before the 

plaintiff asked for expedited consideration. Less than two weeks later, the court denied immediate relief so as not to interfere with an 

intraparty dispute. 

Topics: Party procedures; enjoining elections. 

A member of the Michigan Democratic Party filed a federal complaint 

against the party in the Western District of Michigan on December 10, 2007, 

complaining that the party’s participation in an early presidential primary 

election—scheduled for January 15, 2008, in violation of national party 

rules—caused her preferred candidate to opt out.1

The dispute arose because some states sought to elevate their status in the 

2008 presidential nominations by moving up in time their selection of convention delegates, but the national Democratic Party sought to preserve the 

special status of Iowa and New Hampshire.2

 Major candidates Barack Obama 

and John Edwards supported the national party’s rules by opting out of the 

Michigan primary election, but major candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 

supported the state’s position by opting in.3

The court assigned the case to Judge Robert J. Jonker.4 Judge Jonker liked 

to review records of filings himself, and seeing that this was an election case 

he asked the law clerk assigned to this case to begin legal research immediately.5

1. Complaint, Hayes v. Mich. Democratic Party, No. 1:07-cv-1237 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 

2007), D.E. 1; see Kathy Barks Hoffman, Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Democratic Primary, Grand 

Rapids Press, Dec. 12, 2007, at B5 (reporting that the plaintiff’s candidate of choice apparently was John Edwards); see also Transcript at 20–22, Hayes, No. 1:07-cv-1237 (W.D. Mich. 

Jan. 7, 2008, filed Jan. 14, 2008), D.E. 21 (observations by the judge that the record’s silence 

on the plaintiff’s preferred candidate meant that the record was consistent with the plaintiff’s 

supporting Clinton, who was on the ballot); id. at 35 (testimony by the plaintiff that she supported Edwards). 

2. See Katharine Q. Seelye, 4 Democrats Leave Michigan’s Early Primary, N.Y. Times, 

Oct. 10, 2007, at A19. 

3. See Jim Harger, Edwards Supporter Heads to Court Over Primary Date, Grand Rapids 

Press, Jan. 5, 2008, at A2; Seelye, supra note 2. 

4. Docket Sheet, Hayes, No. 1:07-cv-1237 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2007). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Jonker for this report by telephone on October 3, 2012. 

5. Interview with Hon. Robert J. Jonker, Oct. 3, 2012. 
Consequences of an Early Primary 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 

The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with expedited 

consideration on December 26, 2007.6

 On the following day, Judge Jonker 

held a telephone status conference, granted the motion to expedite, and set 

hearing on the injunction motion for January 7, 2008.7

 Judge Jonker wanted 

to allow both enough time to get it right and enough time for a possible appeal.8

At the hearing, the plaintiff’s attorney announced that he was backing 

away from a demand that the election be halted while retaining a plea that 

the election results not be used for the selection of delegates.9

After the hearing, Judge Jonker denied the plaintiff preliminary injunctive relief.10 In addition to a reluctance to interfere with an election, especially 

one to be held only days later, Judge Jonker expressed doubt about the plaintiff’s standing: 

And so a voter has to come into court and demonstrate some imminent and 

substantial harm that separates the particular voter coming in from other 

voters so that every voter in the Democratic Party doesn’t effectively have a 

right to lose . . . an intraparty dispute and then come to court and assert 

their position all over again.11

On February 5, Judge Jonker approved a stipulated dismissal of the action.12

This case was not filed on election day, so it was assigned to a judge by 

normal procedures.13 For possible emergency cases at the time of elections, 

the court asked one district judge to be on duty to handle emergency matters 

if necessary for cases assigned to other judges.14

6. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Hayes, No. 1:07-cv-1237 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2007), 

D.E. 6. 

7. Docket Sheet, supra note 4; Minutes, Hayes, No. 1:07-cv-1237 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 27, 

2007), D.E. 10. 

8. Interview with Hon. Robert J. Jonker, Oct. 3, 2012. 

9. Transcript, supra note 1, at 9–11. 

10. Order, Hayes, No. 1:07-cv-1237 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 7, 2008), D.E. 19; Minutes, id. (Jan. 

7, 2008), D.E. 18; see Jim Harger, Judge Sidesteps Political Fray, Grand Rapids Press, Jan. 8, 

2008, at B1. 

11. Transcript, supra note 1, at 72. 

12. Order, Hayes, No. 1:07-cv-1237 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2008), D.E. 25. 

13. Interview with Hon. Robert J. Jonker, Oct. 3, 2012. 

14. Id.