CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/1/2023 1

Challenging Absentee-Ballot Procedures 

in Detroit During an Infectious Pandemic 

Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey 

(Robert H. Cleland, E.D. Mich. 3:20-cv-12129) 

and Davis v. Benson (1:20-cv-915) and Johnson v. Benson 

(1:20-cv-948) (Paul L. Maloney, W.D. Mich.) 

During the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic, federal actions in 

Michigan challenged mailing out unsolicited absentee-ballot applications and counting absentee ballots received after election day. 

Recognizing the complexity of applying state law on the matters during the pandemic, district judges in each of Michigan’s two districts 

stayed federal claims pending a related action in state court. The federal judges denied the plaintiffs immediate relief. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

Covid-19; matters for state courts; intervention; enforcing orders; 

primary election. 

In the Eastern District 

During the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic, a voter who voted in an August 4, 2020, primary election filed a federal complaint on August 9 in the 

Eastern District of Michigan against Detroit’s election officials, alleging that it 

was illegal for the defendants to send the voter an unsolicited absentee-ballot 

application in June.1

 Among the complaint’s claims was one for criminal contempt, an allegation that mailing the absentee-ballot applications violated a 

state-court order.2

Michigan’s court of appeals ruled in 2007 that it was not proper for Detroit’s election officials to mail out unsolicited absentee-ballot applications: 

“[I]t is clear that the city clerk has no powers concerning the distribution of 

ballot applications other than those that are expressly granted in the statute. 

And the power to mail unsolicited ballot applications to qualified voters is not 

expressly stated anywhere in this statute.”3

On the day after she filed her complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction against the mailing of 

unsolicited absentee-ballot applications for the November general election.4

1. Complaint, Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey, No. 3:20-cv-12129 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Id. at 13–20. 

3. Taylor v. Currie, 277 Mich. App. 85, 743 N.W.2d 571, 577 (2007), review denied, 483 

Mich. 907, 762 N.W.2d 169 (2009); see also Taylor v. Currie, 386 F. Supp. 2d 929 (E.D. Mich. 

2005) (remand to state court by Judge Robert H. Cleland of the case, which was improperly 

removed to federal court); Docket Sheet, Taylor v. Currie, No. 2:05-cv-73148 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 

2, 2005) (improperly removed case). 

4. Motion, Reed-Pratt, No. 3:20-cv-12129 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2020), D.E. 2. 
Challenging Absentee-Ballot Procedures in Detroit During an Infectious Pandemic 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/1/2023 

Judge Robert H. Cleland denied the plaintiff a temporary restraining order 

on August 11 and set the case for an August 19 videoconference hearing, posting contact information in the public record.5

Learning from the defendants’ briefing, however, that similar claims were 

pending in state court, Judge Cleland canceled the August 19 hearing on August 13 and ordered briefing by August 31 on how and whether the federal 

court should proceed.6 In response to a motion for reconsideration and an 

amended complaint, both filed on Friday, August 14, Judge Cleland decided 

on August 17 to hold a telephone conference on August 18.7 Following the 

conference, Judge Cleland maintained a briefing deadline of August 31.8

On September 9, Judge Cleland decided to stay the plaintiff’s federal claim 

and dismiss without prejudice the plaintiff’s state claims.9 Whether Detroit 

election officials were authorized to mail unsolicited absentee-ballot applications during the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic was an issue that involved complex questions of state law.10

An appeal was dismissed on December 7 for failure to prosecute it.11 On 

January 14, 2021, Judge Cleland ordered the plaintiff to notify the court of her 

intentions with the case,12 and the plaintiff filed a notice on January 17 that she 

intended to proceed.13

In the Western District 

Two voters, including the plaintiff in the pending state-court action, filed a 

federal complaint against state and Detroit election officials in the Western 

District of Michigan, which includes the state’s capital, on September 17, 2020, 

challenging the mailing out of unsolicited absentee-voter applications for the 

upcoming November 3 general election.14 The court assigned the case to Judge 

Paul L. Maloney.15

On the following day, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a summary declaratory judgment against the Detroit election officials,16 accompanied by a motion to expedite the summary-judgment motion.17

5. Order, id. (Aug. 11, 2020), D.E. 8, 2020 WL 6580621; Notice, id. (Aug. 11, 2020), D.E. 9. 

6. Order, id. (Aug. 13, 2020), D.E. 17, 2020 WL 4700830; see Defendants’ Brief at 5–6, id.

(Aug. 11, 2020), D.E. 7. 

7. Opinion, id. (Aug. 17, 2020), D.E. 22 (“The court will initiate the call.”); see Amended 

Complaint, id. (Aug. 14, 2020), D.E. 19; Reconsideration Motion, id. (Aug. 14, 2020), D.E. 18. 

8. Order, id. (Aug. 19, 2020), D.E. 24. 

9. Opinion, id. (Sept. 9, 2020), D.E. 29, 2020 WL 5491443. 

10. Id. 

11. Order, Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey, No. 20-1876 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2020), D.E. 21. 

12. Order, Reed-Pratt, No. 3:20-cv-12129 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2021), D.E. 33. 

13. Notice, id. (Jan. 17, 2021), D.E. 34; see Order, id. (Jan. 19, 2021), D.E. 35 (terminating 

the preliminary-injunction motion as moot and noting that the case remained stayed pending 

state-court litigation); Notice, id. (Sept. 23, 2021), D.E. 36 (“The mailing was made and the 

election has come and gone, leaving nothing to be enjoined.”). 

14. Complaint, Davis v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 17, 2020), D.E. 1. 

15. Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 17, 2020). 

16. Motion, id. (Sept. 18, 2020), D.E. 5. 

17. Motion, id. (Sept. 18, 2020), D.E. 7. 
Challenging Absentee-Ballot Procedures in Detroit During an Infectious Pandemic 

Federal Judicial Center 8/1/2023 3

Michigan’s court of appeals had ruled on September 16 that “the authority 

and discretion afforded the Secretary of State by the constitution and state law 

permit defendant to send unsolicited absent-voter ballot applications to all 

Michigan qualified registered voters.”18 The ruling in 2007 did not apply, because that case involved mailings by a local election official who was also a 

candidate.19 Michigan’s supreme court declined to review the appellate decision on December 28.20

Noting that the state appellate decision should preclude the new federal 

case, the Detroit election officials moved on September 23 to dismiss the case 

or transfer it to the Eastern District.21 The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint six days later, which added a challenge to the counting of absentee ballots received after the closing of the polls,22 and the plaintiffs filed a motion for 

a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against Michigan’s 

secretary of state one day after they filed the amended complaint.23 The plaintiffs also renewed their motions for an emergency summary declaratory judgment against Detroit’s election officials24 and expedited briefing on the summary-judgment motion.25

On Thursday, October 1, Judge Maloney denied the plaintiffs a temporary 

restraining order and set briefing on the preliminary-injunction motion to 

conclude on October 16.26

On the previous Tuesday, three voters filed a federal complaint in the 

Western District to ensure that the secretary of state not allow the counting of 

absentee ballots received after election day.27 On the next day, the plaintiffs 

filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.28 Judge Maloney ordered briefing 

concluded by October 16.29

Also on October 1, Judge Maloney set both cases for oral argument on October 20.30 He later moved oral argument up one day31 and allowed intervention as defendants in the second case by a group of two individuals and two 

organizations.32

18. Davis v. Sec’y of State, 333 Mich. App. 588, 605, 963 N.W.2d 653, 662 (2020). 

19. Id. at 600–01, 963 N.W.2d at 660. 

20. Davis v. Sec’y of State, 506 Mich. 1040, 951 N.W.2d 911 (2020). 

21. Motion, Davis, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2020), D.E. 18. 

22. Amended Complaint, id. (Sept. 29, 2020), D.E. 24. 

23. Motion, id. (Sept. 30, 2020), D.E. 25. 

24. Motion, id. (Sept. 30, 2020), D.E. 27. 

25. Motion, id. (Sept. 30, 2020), D.E. 29. 

26. Order, id. (Oct. 1, 2020), D.E. 33. 

27. Complaint, Johnson v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-948 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2020), D.E. 1. 

28. Motion, id. (Sept. 30, 2020), D.E. 4. 

29. Order, id. (Oct. 1, 2020), D.E. 6. 

30. Order, id. (Oct. 1, 2020), D.E. 7. 

31. Order, id. (Oct. 6, 2020), D.E. 15; Order, Davis, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 6, 

2020), D.E. 36; see Minutes, Johnson, No. 1:20-cv-948 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2020), D.E. 38; 

Minutes, Davis, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2020), D.E. 56. 

32. Order, Johnson, No. 1:20-cv-948 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 6, 2020), D.E. 13; see Motion, id.

(Oct. 2, 2020), D.E. 9. 
Challenging Absentee-Ballot Procedures in Detroit During an Infectious Pandemic 

4 Federal Judicial Center 8/1/2023 

On October 2, Judge Maloney denied the motion for expedited briefing in 

the first case, because the ballots had already been mailed and the election 

would not moot declaratory judgment.33 A week later, he again denied the 

plaintiffs a temporary restraining order.34

On the day of the hearings, Judge Maloney decided to hold the second case 

in abeyance pending the secretary’s preparation of new guidance to local election officials concerning absentee ballots.35 On the next day, he denied in the 

first case a preliminary injunction on counting absentee ballots.36 Toward the 

end of the month, he dismissed the declaratory-judgment claim in the first 

case.37 The parties in the second case stipulated dismissal on November 23.38

On September 22 of the following year, Judge Maloney dismissed the first 

case.39

Final Resolution 

The parties in the Eastern District case stipulated an October 5, 2021, dismissal.40

33. Order, id. (Oct. 2, 2020), D.E. 35. 

34. Order, Davis, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 9, 2020), D.E. 45. 

35. Order, Johnson, No. 1:20-cv-948 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2020), D.E. 37. 

36. Opinion, Davis, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2020), D.E. 59. 

37. Opinion, id. (Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 68. 

38. Stipulated Dismissal, Johnson, No. 1:20-cv-948 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2020), D.E. 48. 

39. Opinion, Davis, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2021), D.E. 83; Opinion, id.

(Sept. 22, 2021), D.E. 68. 

40. Stipulated Order, Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey, No. 3:20-cv-12129 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2021), 

D.E. 37.