CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 4/13/2023 1

Signing a Ballot Petition 

Too Long Before It Is Filed 

Myers v. Johnson 

(Linda V. Parker, E.D. Mich. 4:16-cv-13255) 

Disappointed by their results in state court, signers of a ballot petition for an initiative challenged in federal court a state law deeming 

signatures over 180 days old presumptively invalid. The district 

judge concluded that the federal suit was precluded by the state-court 

result and also filed too close to the election for nondisruptive relief. 

Topics: Getting on the ballot; ballot measure; matters for state 

courts; laches. 

Following an adverse ruling by Michigan’s supreme court on Wednesday, September 7, 2016, two signers of a petition for a proposed ballot initiative filed a 

federal complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan on September 8.1 The 

plaintiffs supported a ballot initiative enabling access to medical marijuana 

and they opposed a Michigan law requiring extra verification of ballot-petition 

signatures executed more than 180 days before the filing of the ballot petition.2

With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining 

order after hours on Thursday.3

Judge Linda V. Parker set the case for hearing at noon on Tuesday, September 13.4

 Following a recess of seven minutes, Judge Parker denied the 

plaintiffs immediate relief.5

First, the Res Judicata Doctrine bars the Plaintiffs’ claims. Michigan’s Board 

of State Canvassers denied ballot access to the Plaintiffs’ petition on June 9th. 

On June 14th, Plaintiff[s] filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims against 

the Michigan Secretary of State, the Defendants here . . . . 

On August 23rd, the Court of Claims granted the Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Disposition. Obviously, the Plaintiffs appealed the decision to 

1. Complaint, Myers v. Johnson, No. 4:16-cv-13255 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2016), D.E. 1; see

Mich. Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Comm. v. Sec’y of State, 884 N.W.2d 294(1) 

(Mich. 2016) (denying a complaint for superintending control); Mich. Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Comm. v. Sec’y of State, 884 N.W.2d 294(2) (Mich. 2016) (denying review); 

Order, Mich. Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Comm. v. Sec’y of State, No. 334560 

(Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2016) (denying an appeal); see Bill Laitner, Pot Legalization Group 

Loses High Court Fight, Detroit Free Press, Sept. 8, 2016, at A5. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 1–3. 

3. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Myers, No. 4:16-cv-13255 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 

2016), D.E. 2; see Transcript at 7, id. (Sept. 13, 2016), filed as Ex. A, Defendants’ Reply Brief, 

id. (Dec. 9, 2016), D.E. 23. 

4. Notice, id. (Sept. 9, 2016), D.E. 6. 

5. Order, id. (Sept. 13, 2016), D.E. 14; Transcript, supra note 3, at 26–31; see Brad 

Devereaux, Group Plans 2018 Marijuana Petition Drive, Flint J., Sept. 24, 2016, at A2; see also

Karen Hopper Usher, Future of Ballot Initiatives Uncertain, Big Rapids Pioneer, Oct. 24, 2016, 

at 5 (“For the first time since 1968, Michigan voters won’t face a statewide ballot question 

when they cast their votes in the presidential election.”). 
Signing a Ballot Petition Too Long Before It Is Filed 

2 Federal Judicial Center 4/13/2023 

the Michigan Court of Appeals which denied the appeal for lack of merit and 

the grounds presented. Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs’ leave to appeal 

and here we are.6

Second, “regardless of what this Court does here it really is too late to have 

any real effect on the ballot presented to Michigan voters on November 8th, 

or at least to do so in a way that does not threaten the disruption of an orderly 

election.”7

Considering an amended complaint filed on September 28, Judge Parker 

dismissed the action on May 12, 2017, as both barred by res judicata and failing 

on the merits: Judge Parker could not conclude that the 180-day rule either 

had a disparate impact on African American voters or infringed on a constitutionally protected right to travel.8

6. Transcript, supra note 3, at 27–28. 

7. Id. at 30. 

8. Opinion, Myers, No. 4:16-cv-13255 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2017), D.E. 26, 2017 WL 

2021064; see Amended Complaint, id. (Sept. 28, 2016), D.E. 15.