CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 1

Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan 

During a Pandemic 

Esshaki v. Whitmer (Terrence G. Berg, 2:20-cv-10831), 

SawariMedia v. Whitmer (Matthew F. Leitman, 

4:20-cv-11246), Kishore v. Whitmer (Sean F. Cox, 

2:20-cv-11605), Detroit Unity Fund v. Whitmer 

(Stephanie Dawkins Davis, 4:20-cv-12016), 

Jobs for Downriver v. Whitmer (George Caram Steeh, 

2:20-cv-12115), and Eason v. Whitmer 

(Robert H. Cleland, 3:20-cv-12252) (E.D. Mich.) 

Because of Michigan’s stay-at-home order early in the Covid-19 

pandemic, a district judge extended the deadline for candidates’ 

ballot-petition signatures and halved the number of signatures required. The court of appeals ruled that the judge was right on the 

merits but not empowered to specify the remedy. On remand, the 

district judge ruled that the state’s implemented remedy did not 

quite pass constitutional muster, and the judge informed the state 

defendants of a possible constitutional remedy. In a second case involving a proposed statewide initiative, the state never proposed to 

a second judge an adequate remedy, but the case was ultimately 

withdrawn for failure to provide evidence of substantial signaturecollection results. Two additional judges denied ballot-petition signature relief, and a fifth case before a fifth judge was dismissed by 

stipulation. A sixth judge dismissed an action filed more than a 

month after the ballot-petition deadline. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Covid-19; getting on the 

ballot; ballot measure; laches; primary election; intervention; 

attorney fees; pro se party. 

Because of social distancing made necessary by the coronavirus disease 2019 

(Covid-19) infectious pandemic, a prospective primary-election candidate 

sought modifications of the ballot-petition signature requirements. A district 

judge ordered modifications, but the court of appeals ruled that although the 

judge was right on liability, it was not for the court to impose a specific remedy. In that case, and in another case involving a proposed initiative, the state 

was unable to propose remedies satisfactory to the court. As time wore on, 

four additional cases over ballot-petition signature requirements were unsuccessful. 

Signature Requirements for a House of Representatives Primary-Election 

Candidate 

A prospective primary-election candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan on March 

31, 2020, seeking relief from an April 21 deadline for filing one thousand ballot-petition signatures in light of the governor’s March 24 stay-at-home or-
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 

der issued because of the Covid-19 infectious pandemic.1 With his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a 

preliminary injunction.2

Judge Terrence G. Berg set the case for a telephonic hearing on April 1, 

instructing the plaintiff’s attorney to initiate the conference call and dial in 

the court when all parties were present.3 A prospective candidate for a judge 

position filed a motion on April 10 to participate as an amicus curiae.4 Judge 

Berg set the case for an additional telephonic hearing on April 135

 and a videoconference hearing initiated by the court on April 15.6

This case arose early in the pandemic, and the court was just beginning to 

use videoconference technology for hearings.7 Among the challenges was allowing for unlimited attendance by members of the public and the news media.8

 The videoconference platform was set up so that the audience would be 

invisible.9

 Because of the hard work by court staff, using the videoconference 

platform was not a challenge for the judge or the lawyers.10

On April 14, another prospective candidate for another judge position 

moved to intervene in the case,11 and the ACLU moved to participate as an 

amicus curiae.12 On April 15, a prospective challenger to the plaintiff in the 

election filed a motion to participate as an amicus curiae;13 a pro se motion 

sought joinder, alleging difficulties in filing a separate complaint because of 

the court’s closure;14 and another pro se filing sought participation in the 

case as an independent candidate for President.15 Judge Berg granted inter1. Complaint, Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2020), D.E. 1; 

Esshaki v. Whitmer, 455 F. Supp. 3d 367, 369–70 (E.D. Mich. 2020). 

2. Motion, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2020), D.E. 2. 

3. Notice, id. (Apr. 1, 2020), D.E. 4. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Berg for this report by telephone on September 17, 2020. 

4. Motion, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 10, 2020), D.E. 7; see Amicus 

Brief, id. (Apr. 14, 2020), D.E. 13. 

5. Notice, id. (Apr. 10, 2020), D.E. 8. 

6. Notice, id. (Apr. 10, 2020), D.E. 9; Transcript, id. (Apr. 15, 2020, filed Apr. 24, 2020), 

D.E. 32 [hereinafter Esshaki Transcript]; Esshaki, 455 F. Supp. 3d at 372 (“The Court heard 

oral argument on this motion on April 15, 2020, utilizing the social media platform Zoom.”). 

7. Interview with Judge Terrence G. Berg, Sept. 17, 2020. 

8. Id. 

9. Id. 

10. Id. 

11. Motion, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2020), D.E. 11 [hereinafter 

Apr. 14, 2020, Esshaki Intervention Motion]. 

12. Motion, id. (Apr. 14, 2020), D.E. 14; see Amicus Brief, id. (Apr. 14, 2020), D.E. 15. 

13. Motion, id. (Apr. 15, 2020), D.E. 20; see Amicus Brief, id. (Apr. 15, 2020), D.E. 21; see 

also Craig Mauger, Whitmer: Candidate Deadline “Critical,” Detroit News, Apr. 18, 2020, at 

B1. 

14. Motion, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2020), D.E. 17; see Docket 

Sheet, Beard v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-11067 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2020) (noting consolidation 

with the earlier case, D.E. 7). 

15. Intervenor’s Complaint, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2020), 

D.E. 18. 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 3

vention to prospective candidates and permission to participate as amici to 

others.16

Judge Berg issued a preliminary injunction on Monday, April 20.17

“[E]ven assuming the State has a compelling interest in the need to ensure a 

modicum of support through the enforcement of the signature requirement, 

the regulatory means to accomplish that compelling interest are not narrowly 

tailored to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.”18 Judge Berg also found, 

however, “that the State is legitimately concerned that a lowering of ballot 

access standards could result in ‘laundry list’ ballots crowded with names 

that ‘discourage voter participation and confuse and frustrate those who do 

participate.’”19

To fashion a remedy, Judge Berg received in camera proposals from both 

sides.20 It was important to get the defendants’ input on remedies for the sake 

of workability.21

The Court considers the proposed remedies suggested by the parties, 

together with the facts and applicable law, and finds that a three-pronged 

remedy is necessary to address the nature of the harm while simultaneously 

respecting the interest of the State. First, the signature requirements must 

be lowered to account for the fact that the State’s action reduced the available time to gather signatures. Second, as the State has conceded that it could 

still meet its election planning obligations if the due date for signatures were 

extended until May 8, the Court will order that extension. Finally, to enhance the available means for gathering signatures, the State will be ordered 

to implement a method that would permit signatures to be gathered 

through the use of electronic mail. In doing so, the State is directed to design a system that is as “user-friendly” as possible to maximize its efficacy. . . 

. 

. . . 

. . . While any such line-drawing inevitably involves some degree of arbitrariness, common sense suggests that a reasonably diligent candidate 

should be expected to have reached the half-way point in gathering signatures when there is only one month to go. Consequently, a reduction in the 

requirement by fifty percent will be ordered.22

Late in the day on May 5, the court of appeals stayed Judge Berg’s remedy, agreeing, however, that a remedy was needed.23 “[F]ederal courts have no 

authority to dictate to the States precisely how they should conduct their 

16. Order, id. (Apr. 20, 2020), D.E. 22. 

17. Esshaki v. Whitmer, 455 F. Supp. 3d 367 (E.D. Mich. 2020); see Beth LeBlanc, Judge 

Extends Mich. Filing Date, Detroit News, Apr. 21, 2020, at B1. 

18. Esshaki, 455 F. Supp. 3d at 378. 

19. Id. at 382 (quoting Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 715 (1974)). 

20. Id. at 372; Esshaki Transcript, supra note 6, at 10. 

21. Interview with Judge Terrence G. Berg, Sept. 17, 2020. 

22. Esshaki, 455 F. Supp. 3d at 382–83; see Esshaki v. Whitmer, 456 F. Supp. 3d 897 (E.D. 

Mich. 2020) (denying reconsideration or a stay). 

23. Esshaki v. Whitmer, 813 F. App’x 170 (6th Cir. 2020); see Craig Mauger, Court: State 

Must Decide on Ballot Changes, Detroit News, May 6, 2020, at A5. 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

4 Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 

elections.”24 The court observed that perhaps the state would voluntarily 

adopt the terms of Judge Berg’s remedy.25

On May 6, Judge Berg ordered Michigan to file proposed reasonable accommodations by 5:00 p.m. that day and set the case for a videoconference 

hearing on May 7 at 3:00.26 Michigan proposed an additional extension of the 

filing deadline to May 11 and a modification of the signature requirement to 

70% of the statutory requirement.27

Judge Berg granted a May 7 request by Michigan’s Republican Party to 

participate as an amicus curiae.28 The amicus lawyering, such as by the 

ACLU and the Republican Party, was very helpful in this case because of the 

amici’s expansive election-law experience.29 Crucial in handling the case’s 

time crunch was the hard and good work by Judge Berg’s law clerks.30

Judge Berg heard the case on May 7 and 18.31 On May 13, he granted a 

judicial candidate’s May 11 motion to intervene.32 He granted another judicial candidate’s May 18 motion to intervene when he issued his second preliminary injunction on May 20.33

The state’s accommodations included a 50% reduction in the signature 

requirement if filed by May 8, but the state agreed to put on the ballot only 

candidates who had either filed a statement of organization or established a 

candidate committee by March 10, the date that Michigan’s state of emergency began.34 Judge Berg determined that the March 10 deadline was not 

narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in weeding out opportunistic candidates and declared it unconstitutional.35 Restrained by the court of appeals 

from ordering a remedy, Judge Berg suggested that constitutional compliance would result from candidates’ being given two days to file signatures 

gathered by May 8.36

A Statewide Initiative 

On May 4, the day before the court of appeals stayed Judge Berg’s remedy, an 

organization and three voters supporting a proposed statewide initiative filed 

a federal complaint in the Eastern District challenging Michigan’s election 

24. Esshaki, 813 F. App’x at 172.

25. Id. at 172–73. 

26. Docket Sheet, Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2020) 

[hereinafter Esshaki Docket Sheet]. 

27. Proposal, id. (May 6, 2020), D.E. 38. 

28 Esshaki Docket Sheet, supra note 26. 

29. Interview with Judge Terrence G. Berg, Sept. 17, 2020. 

30. Id. 

31. Esshaki Docket Sheet, supra note 26 (minutes, May 7 and 18, 2020). 

32. Order, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. May 13, 2020), D.E. 52; Motion, id.

(May 11, 2020), D.E. 47 [hereinafter May 13, 2020, Esshaki Intervention Motion]. 

33. Esshaki v. Whitmer, 461 F. Supp. 3d 646, 651 (E.D. Mich. 2020); Motion, Esshaki, 

No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2020), D.E. 58. 

34. Esshaki, 461 F. Supp. 3d at 646–47 & 649 n.1. 

35. Id. at 648–49; see Mike Martindale, Ruling Revives 2 Candidates’ Ballot Hopes, Detroit 

News, May 21, 2020, at A17. 

36. Esshaki, 461 F. Supp. 3d at 650–51. 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 5

officials’ not applying Judge Berg’s order to ballot petitions for initiatives.37

With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.38

Judge Matthew F. Leitman set the case for a May 21 telephonic status 

conference, posting the contact information in the public record.39 After 

some briefing, Judge Leitman set the case for a June 5 videoconference hearing, noting that the court would provide the link to participants.40 An attorney entered an appearance for the organizational plaintiff on June 1.41

A big believer in not reinventing the wheel, Judge Leitman reviewed 

Judge Berg’s case and other similar cases around the country.42 On June 11, 

Judge Leitman applied the logic of Judge Berg’s order to general-election initiatives.43 “Because Defendants have not shown that their enforcement of the 

signature requirement and filing deadline are narrowly tailored to the present circumstances, those requirements cannot survive a strict scrutiny analysis as applied to Plaintiffs.”44 Although Judge Leitman enjoined the signature requirement as unreasonable, Judge Leitman did not specify a more precise remedy.45

Michigan proposed as a remedy modifying neither the number of signatures required nor the submission deadline for the 2020 election; instead, 

Michigan proposed that the limitation period for signatures be tolled so that 

signatures already collected could be used for the 2022 election.46

Following a June 16 attorneys-only videoconference, Judge Leitman rejected the proposed remedy and set the case for another videoconference on 

June 22.47 On June 18, Michigan submitted an alternative proposed remedy 

extending the signature-filing deadline for the November election from May 

27 to July 6.48

37. Complaint, SawariMedia LLC v. Whitmer, No. 4:20-cv-11246 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 

2020), D.E. 1. 

38. Motion, id. (May 4, 2020), D.E. 2. 

39. Notice, id. (May 21, 2020), D.E. 6. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Leitman for this report by telephone on September 18, 

2020. 

40. Notice, SawariMedia LLC, No. 4:20-cv-11246 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2020), D.E. 10; see

Transcript, id. (June 5, 2020, filed Oct. 16, 2020), D.E. 49. 

41. Notice of Appearance, id. (June 1, 2020), D.E. 11. 

42. Interview with Judge Matthew F. Leitman, Sept. 18, 2020. 

43. SawariMedia LLC v. Whitmer, 466 F. Supp. 3d 758 (E.D. Mich. 2020), appeal voluntarily dismissed, Order, SawariMedia LLC v. Whitmer, No. 20-1594 (6th Cir. Dec. 9, 2020), 

D.E. 33. 

44. SawariMedia LLC, 466 F. Supp. 3d at 776. 

45. Id. at 778–79. 

46. Defendants’ Proposed Remedy, SawariMedia LLC, No. 4:20-cv-11246 (E.D. Mich. 

June 15, 2020), D.E. 18. 

47. Order, id. (June 16, 2020), D.E. 22; Docket Sheet, id. (May 4, 2020) [hereinafter

SawariMedia LLC Docket Sheet]; see Notice, id. (June 16, 2020), D.E. 20. 

48. Defendant’s Second Proposed Remedy, id. (June 18, 2020), D.E. 23; see SawariMedia, 

LLC v. Whitmer, 963 F.3d 595, 597 (6th Cir. 2020). 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

6 Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 

In preparation for the June 22 videoconference, Judge Leitman obtained 

consent from all parties to conduct separate settlement discussions with the 

two sides in videoconference breakout rooms.49 A law clerk communicated 

with all parties and reported to Judge Leitman only whether there was unanimous agreement for separate sessions, not which party, if any, objected.50

Settlement was not achieved, and Judge Leitman orally rejected the defendants’ proposal: 

I’m going to sustain the objections to this remedy and the original injunction precluding the defendants from keeping this initiative off the ballot by 

operation of the constitutional provision concerning the minimum number 

of signatures and the filing deadline, the state defendants are still enjoined 

from keeping these plaintiffs off the ballot on that basis.51

Judge Leitman issued a written ruling on the following day.52

Michigan immediately appealed Judge Leitman’s rulings.53 On June 24, 

Judge Leitman denied Michigan a stay pending appeal;54 the court of appeals 

did so on July 2.55 Judge Leitman set the case for another videoconference on 

July 13.56

On July 7, Michigan informed Judge Leitman and the plaintiffs that they 

intended to seek a stay from the Supreme Court, and they intended no additional remedy proposal.57 Judge Leitman set the case for a videoconference 

on the next day.58 At the conference, Judge Leitman ordered the plaintiffs to 

provide the court with an update on their signature-collection efforts,59 and 

Judge Leitman again set the case for a videoconference on July 13 at 4:00 

p.m.60

Unable to provide evidence of substantial signature collections,61 the 

plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action on July 23.62 On that day, Michigan 

withdrew its Supreme Court stay application.63

Judge Leitman greatly appreciated the flexibility afforded by videoconference technology.64 Video sessions have many benefits over audio sessions. 

49. Transcript at 6–7, SawariMedia LLC, No. 4:20-cv-11246 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2020, 

filed June 23, 2020), D.E. 28. 

50. Id. at 6. 

51. Id. at 13. 

52. Order, id. (June 23, 2020), D.E. 25. 

53. Notice of Appeal, id. (June 23, 2020), D.E. 26. 

54. Opinion, id. (June 24, 2020), D.E. 32, 2020 WL 3447694. 

55. SawariMedia, LLC v. Whitmer, 963 F.3d 595, (6th Cir. 2020). 

56. Notice, SawariMedia LLC, No. 4:20-cv-11246 (E.D. Mich. July 2, 2020), D.E. 35. 

57. Defendants’ Statement, id. (July 7, 2020), D.E. 36. 

58. Notice, id. (July 7, 2020), D.E. 37. 

59. SawariMedia LLC Docket Sheet, supra note 47. 

60. Notice, SawariMedia LLC, No. 4:20-cv-11246 (E.D. Mich. July 8, 2020), D.E. 38. 

61. Plaintiffs’ Declaration, id. (July 23, 2020), D.E. 42. 

62. Voluntary Dismissal, id. (July 23, 2020), D.E. 43; see Order, id. (Oct. 19, 2020), D.E. 

50 (vacating the injunction). 

63. Letter, Whitmer v. SawariMedia, LLC, No. 20A1 (U.S. July 23, 2020). 

64. Interview with Judge Matthew F. Leitman, Sept. 18, 2020. 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 7

Among other things, it is much easier on the court reporter.65 Although inperson sessions are even better, the ability to hold proceedings by videoconference makes scheduling easier, which is important in cases with a time 

crunch.66

There was an effort to make open to the public any session that under 

normal circumstances would be in open court.67 If settlement negotiations 

were expected during the session, Judge Leitman was inclined to not make 

the session open to the public, subject to the parties’ agreement.68

A Minor Party’s Presidential Candidate 

A minor party’s candidates for President and Vice President filed a federal 

complaint in the Eastern District on June 18, challenging the signature requirements for getting on the ballot in Michigan.69 With their complaint, the 

plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction.70

On the next day, Judge Sean F. Cox set the case for a telephonic status 

conference on June 23, providing contact information in the public record.71

After the conference, Judge Cox set the case for oral arguments by video on 

July 2, again providing contact information in the public record.72 A few days 

before the hearing, Judge Cox ordered the plaintiffs to submit information 

about signatures already collected.73

On July 8, Judge Cox denied the plaintiffs immediate relief.74 “A reasonably diligent candidate could be expected to satisfy the State’s ballot-access 

requirements under the circumstances presented . . . .”75 The court of appeals 

affirmed Judge Cox’s decision on August 24.76

The plaintiffs dismissed the action voluntarily on September 9.77

A Detroit Initiative 

A set of proponents of a municipal initiative filed a federal complaint in the 

Eastern District against Michigan and Detroit election officials at 3:12 p.m. 

on July 28, challenging that day as the due date for ballot-petition signa65. Id. 

66. Id. 

67. Id. 

68. Id. 

69. Complaint, Kishore v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-11605 (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2020), D.E. 

1; Kishore v. Whitmer, 972 F.3d 745, 749 (6th Cir. 2020). 

70. Motion, Kishore, No. 2:20-cv-11605 (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2020), D.E. 3. 

71. Notice, id. (June 19, 2020), D.E. 4 

72. Order, id. (June 23, 2020), D.E. 6; Notice, id. (June 23, 2020), D.E. 7; Transcript, id.

(July 2, 2020, filed July 9, 2020), D.E. 18. 

73. Order, id. (June 29, 2020), D.E. 12. 

74. Opinion, id. (July 8, 2020), D.E. 17, 2020 WL 3819125. 

75. Id. at 2. 

76. Kishore v. Whitmer, 972 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 2020). 

77. Notice, Kishore, No. 2:20-cv-11605 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2020), D.E. 25. 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

8 Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 

tures.78 At 3:37, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

and a preliminary injunction.79

The court assigned the case to Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis,80 who 

conferred with other judges on her court presiding over ballot-petitionsignature cases regarding case-management strategies.81 An important first 

step is for the plaintiff to identify who will be representing the defendants 

and find out when they can meet with the court.82

Judge Davis set the case for an attorneys-only videoconference on July 

29, the day after the complaint was filed.83 She much preferred videoconference proceedings to telephone proceedings; it is much easier to know who is 

speaking.84

She then set the case for a videoconference hearing on Friday, August 14, 

posting contact information in the public record.85 At the hearing, Judge Davis reminded the participants, “Parties are not permitted to make any recordings or take any pictures during the course of the proceedings.”86 From the 

bench, she denied the plaintiffs immediate relief.87 An opinion followed on 

Monday.88

The plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights.89 “Moreover, 

there were several methods available to Plaintiffs to obtain the requisite signatures without violating the Governor’s social distancing requirements.”90

The court of appeals affirmed Judge Davis’s decision on September 2,91 and 

Judge Davis entered a stipulated dismissal of the case on September 22.92

78. Complaint, Detroit Unity Fund v. Whitmer, No. 4:20-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 

2020), D.E. 1; Detroit Unity Fund v. Whitmer, 819 F. App’x 421, 422 (6th Cir. 2020); Opinion at 2, Detroit Unity Fund, No. 4:20-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2020), D.E. 12 [hereinafter E.D. Mich. Detroit Unity Fund Opinion], 2020 WL 6580458. 

79. Motion, Detroit Unity Fund, No. 4:20-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2020), D.E. 2; 

Detroit Unity Fund, 819 F. App’x at 422; E.D. Mich. Detroit Unity Fund Opinion, supra note 

78, at 2. 

80. Docket Sheet, Detroit Unity Fund, No. 4:20-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2020). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Davis for this report by telephone on September 16, 2020. 

Judge Davis was elevated to the court of appeals on June 14, 2022. Federal Judicial Center 

Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

81. Interview with Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Sept. 16, 2020. 

82. Id. 

83. Notice, Detroit Unity Fund, No. 4:20-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2020), D.E. 5. 

84. Interview with Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Sept. 16, 2020. 

85. Notice, Detroit Unity Fund, No. 4:20-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. July 29, 2020), D.E. 6. 

86. Transcript at 5, id. (Aug. 14, 2020, filed Aug. 24, 2020), D.E. 13. 

87. Id. at 26; E.D. Mich. Detroit Unity Fund Opinion, supra note 78, at 2; Detroit Unity 

Fund v. Whitmer, 819 F. App’x 421, 422 (6th Cir. 2020). 

88. E.D. Mich. Detroit Unity Fund Opinion, supra note 78. 

89. Id. at 12. 

90. Id. at 20. 

91. Detroit Unity Fund, 819 F. App’x 421. 

92. Dismissal Order, Detroit Unity Fund, No. 4:20-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2020), 

D.E. 19. 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 9

Other Municipal Initiatives 

Five local ballot-question committees filed a federal complaint in the Eastern 

District against state and local election officials on August 5, seeking relief 

from the plaintiffs’ inability to satisfy ballot-petition signature requirements 

by the deadline for the November 3 general election.93 On the next day, the 

plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction: “time is of the essence in this matter, as absent voter ballots for 

the November 2020 general election must be printed and mailed to military 

and overseas voters by September 19, 2020.”94

On August 7, Judge George Caram Steeh set the case for hearing by video 

conference on August 31—providing contact information in the public record—with briefing to be completed by August 24.95 Judge Steeh knew that 

especially for a case involving voting it would be important for the public to 

be able to observe the proceeding.96

On August 25, however, the parties stipulated dismissal.97

An Independent Candidate for Congress 

A prospective independent candidate for Congress in the November general 

election filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District on Saturday, August 

19, seeking relief from the July 16 filing deadline.98 With his complaint, the 

plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction.99

On Tuesday, Judge Robert H. Cleland denied the plaintiff a temporary 

restraining order, not persuaded by the filings’ “broad generalizations,” and 

set the case for a September 10 videoconference hearing, posting contact information in the public record.100

On September 9, however, Judge Cleland determined that a hearing was 

not necessary, and he denied the plaintiff a preliminary injunction.101 On the 

one hand, the plaintiff “does not explain why he waited 34 days after the 

93. Complaint, Jobs for Downriver v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-12115 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 

2020), D.E. 1. 

94. Motion at 3, id. (Aug. 6, 2020), D.E. 3. 

95. Notice. id. (Aug. 7, 2020), D.E. 6. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Steeh for this report by telephone on September 16, 2020. 

96. Interview with Judge George Caram Steeh, Sept. 16, 2020. 

97. Stipulation, Jobs for Downriver, No. 2:20-cv-12115 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2020), 

D.E. 34. 

98. Complaint, Eason v. Whitmer, No. 3:20-cv-12252 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2020), D.E. 1; 

Eason v. Whitmer, 485 F. Supp. 3d 876, 877–78 (E.D. Mich. 2020). 

99. Motion, Eason, No. 3:20-cv-12252 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2020), D.E. 2; Eason, 485 F. 

Supp. 3d at 878. 

100. Order, Eason, No. 3:20-cv-12252 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2020), D.E. 6, 2020 WL 

4923694; Notice, id. (Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 11; see Eason, 485 F. Supp. 3d at 878. 

101. Eason, 485 F. Supp. 3d 876. 
Ballot-Petition Signature Deadlines in Michigan During a Pandemic 

10 Federal Judicial Center 10/21/2023 

deadline to file this action.”102 On the other hand, “Plaintiff submits scant 

information regarding his signature collection efforts.”103

The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action that day.104

The Conclusion of Judge Berg’s Case 

On July 30, Judge Berg denied intervention by a plaintiff seeking relief related to the November general election instead of the primary election.105

The plaintiff in Judge Berg’s case prevailed in the August 4 primary election.106

On September 2, 2020, Judge Berg dismissed the action with prejudice as 

moot, except for attorney-fee claims.107 The court of appeals ordered similar 

relief one week later.108 On March 30, 2021, Judge Berg issued attorney-fee 

awards of $15,423.25109 and $8,249.18110 to two judicial-candidate intervenors. 

102. Id. at 880. 

103. Id. at 879. 

104. Voluntary Dismissal, Eason, No. 3:20-cv-12252 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2020), D.E. 13. 

105. Order, Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2020), D.E. 66; 

see Intervention Motion, id. (July 27, 2020), D.E. 65. 

106. See Melissa Nann Burke, Stevens Picks Up U.S. Chamber’s Backing, Detroit News, 

Sept. 3, 2020, at A5; Leonard N. Fleming, Esshaki Holds Slim Lead in Early Returns, Detroit 

News, Aug. 5, 2020, at A6. 

107. Order, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 71, 2020 WL 

5900965. 

108. Order, Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 20-1336 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2020), D.E. 27. 

109. Opinion, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2021), D.E. 83, 2021 WL 

1192913; see May 13, 2020, Esshaki Intervention Motion, supra note 32. 

110. Opinion, Esshaki, No. 2:20-cv-10831 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2021), D.E. 81, 2021 WL 

1192915; see Apr. 14, 2020, Esshaki Intervention Motion, supra note 11.