IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

__________________________________________

)

DUANE MALETSKI, )

SHARON LOPEZ, )

FRANCES M. ZICK, )

and all others similarly situated, )

OBAMA FOR AMERICA, and )

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE )

)

PLAINTIFFS ) Case No. 

)

v. )

) CLASS ACTION

MACOMB COUNTY REPUBLICAN )

PARTY, )

MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY, )

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, )

and JOHN DOES #1-100, )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

__________________________________________)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. Individual and representative Plaintiffs Duane Maletski, Sharon Lopez, and

Frances Zick (“Individual Plaintiffs”), and Plaintiffs Obama for America and the Democratic 

National Committee (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek declaratory and injunctive relief against 

Defendants, and in support, state as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2. This complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the “lose your 

home, lose your vote” vote-suppression program adopted by the Macomb County Republican 

Party, in concert with the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee, 

Maletski et al v. Macomb County Republican Party et al Doc. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
2

as well as unnamed Defendants who will implement the scheme at polling places in Macomb 

County and throughout the State.

3. Republican operatives have announced that they will seek to strip the right to vote 

of individuals who reside in homes for which a notice of foreclosure has been issued by making 

challenges on Election Day to each such citizen’s right to vote. This “lose your home, lose your 

vote” program is part of a broader scheme – misnamed an “election integrity” program – to 

harass voters and suppress the vote throughout the State of Michigan in the upcoming election on 

November 4. 

4. The mass and systematic challenge of voters under the Defendant Republicans’ 

“lose your home, lose your vote” scheme will impair the right to vote of Individual Plaintiffs and 

all others similarly situated. The presence of an address on a list of foreclosures provides no 

legitimate basis for challenging a voter’s eligibility to vote, and use of such foreclosure lists for 

mass and systematic challenges can have but one purpose: to threaten, harass, and intimidate 

voters whom Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to vote for their candidates. The result 

of the mass challenges envisioned by the “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme will be denial 

and/or abridgement of the right to vote, indeterminate and inordinate delays at polling places 

affecting Individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated who must suffer through a baseless 

challenge process (as well as others affected by the diversion of election resources compelled by 

the mass, baseless challenges of the “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme), and the 

subjection of Individual Plaintiffs and similarly situated voters to potentially harassing public 

questioning that is unrelated to their eligibility to vote.
3

5. Plaintiffs hereby seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant 

Republicans from implementing their “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme and from levying 

mass challenges to voters based on home foreclosure lists.

THE PARTIES

6. Individual and representative Plaintiff Duane Maletski has lived in Warren, 

Michigan, in Macomb County, for nine years. He lives at 25165 Audrey Avenue, which he 

purchased from his mother in 2002 or 2003. After initially financing the home with a fixed-rate 

mortgage, he refinanced in 2004 to obtain a lower rate. When he initially purchased the home, 

his annual income from his job as a fabricator at a specialty automotive products company was 

around $45,000, and his mortgage payments were around $1100. After he refinanced, his 

payments decreased to $1070. However, after he was laid off, he began to miss mortgage 

payments here and there. His mother occasionally helped him out, but he was reluctant to ask 

her for more help because she was dipping into her retirement accounts. He tried to find 

additional work, but because of chronic back problems has been unable to return to work as a 

fabricator; instead, he has worked occasional odd jobs and sold things on Craigslist to make 

money. Nonetheless, within the last year, he has been in foreclosure three or four times – most 

recently around July 29. He is, and at all times relevant hereto has continuously been, lawfully 

registered to vote at his current address, and has voted regularly in Macomb County elections. 

He intends to vote in the upcoming general election on November 4, 2008, but fears that the 

appearance of his home on a foreclosure list and the Defendant Republicans’ “lose your home, 

lose your vote” challenge scheme will result in infringement of his right to vote.

7. Individual and Representative Plaintiff Sharon Lopez is 61 years old and for thirty 

years has lived, on and off, at 7012 Studebaker in Warren, Michigan, in Macomb County. She 
4

lives there with her husband, and owns the house next door, at 7004 Studebaker. Both houses 

were once owned by her father, who quit-claimed the deeds to her. Ms. Lopez’s son moved into 

7004 Studebaker, but after breaking his leg in five places, was laid up for six months and could 

not pay the rent on that home. Ms. Lopez ultimately took out a second mortgage on that home in 

2004; while she thought it was a fixed-rate mortgage, after two years its rate jumped up to over 

10 percent. Since her husband was laid off in 2002 from his job as a welder, Ms. Lopez’s 

household’s only regular income has been her husband’s Social Security retirement income, and 

they have significant medical bills. Thus, when a fire caused significant damage at the 7004 

Studebaker property and her son was forced to move out and stopped paying rent there, Ms. 

Lopez has fallen behind on the mortgage payments. While she has hired a contractor to get the 

house in livable condition so it can be rented again, she is behind $3,000 to $4,000 in her 

mortgage payments. Last month, Ms. Lopez’s bank foreclosed on the 7004 Studebaker property 

that is owned in her name. Ms. Lopez continues to reside at 7012 Studebaker, where she is 

registered. She has voted regularly from that address and intends to vote in the upcoming 

presidential election. She fears that the appearance of her home on foreclosure lists and the 

Defendant Republicans’ “lose your home, lose your vote” challenge scheme will result in 

infringement of her right to vote – particularly since she plans on voting absentee, and thus will 

not be present to defend her right to vote when the challenge is made.

8. Individual and representative Plaintiff Frances M. Zick lives in Sterling Heights, 

Michigan, in Macomb County. She grew up at 38216 Medville Drive, and she purchased that 

house from her parents and moved back into it fifteen years ago. In 2005, she refinanced the 

home with an adjustable-rate mortgage, but her rate has now risen to around 10%, causing her 

monthly payments to rise from the approximately $1100 she paid in 2005 to their current $1800 
5

including escrow. She continues to work, as she has for the past seventeen years, as a cashier in 

a supermarket, and by May of this year had fallen one payment behind on her mortgage. After 

missing one more payment in July, she was notified that she was in default and had to pay 

$3,520.73. She missed at least one additional payment after receiving the default notice, but sent 

the amount listed in the letter through Western Union. On September 11 she received a letter 

from the Macomb County law firm of Trott & Trott indicating that her debt was being 

accelerated. On September 13, 2008, she received a notice that her home was going to be sold in 

a mortgage foreclosure sale on October 10, 2008. Despite the foreclosure proceedings, she 

continues to reside in her home. She intends to vote in the upcoming presidential election, just 

as she did in the 2006, 2004, and 2000 elections. She fears that the appearance of her home on 

foreclosure lists and the Defendant Republicans’ “lose your home, lose your vote” challenge 

scheme will result in infringement of her right to vote.

9. Individual Plaintiffs seek to bring this case as a class action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as members 

of a proposed class, defined as follows:

All persons who have registered or will register to vote in the State of Michigan and who 

own, or who are registered to vote from, property that has been listed as subject to 

foreclosure proceedings.

10. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is 

impracticable. In Macomb County, there have been 11,435 sheriff deeds and tax forfeitures so 

far in 2008.

11. Virtually all the issues of law and fact in this class action are common to the class 

and include the following:

Whether Defendant Republicans’ “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme of engaging 

in mass and systematic challenges of the right to vote based on the presence of the voter’s 
6

residential voting address on a list of foreclosed homes infringes on the right to vote 

secured by the U.S. Constitution and federal law. 

12. Individual Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class members’ claims. Individual 

Plaintiffs and all other members of the Class will have their fundamental right to vote infringed

in the event that Defendants are permitted to use lists of foreclosed properties as a basis for 

challenging voters’ registration. 

13. Individual Plaintiffs can and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the 

interests of the class and have no interests that conflict with or are antagonistic to the interest of 

class members. No conflict exists between the Individual Plaintiffs and class members.

14. A class action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy, and common questions of law and fact predominate over any

individual questions that may arise.

15. Plaintiff Obama for America is a political campaign operating in the State of 

Michigan. It is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and has an office in Michigan and offices 

across the country. 

16. Plaintiff Democratic National Committee is an unincorporated association that is 

the governing body of the Democratic Party of the United States. It is the “national committee” 

of the Democratic Party within the meaning of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as 

amended, 2 U.S.C. § 431(14). The DNC’s headquarters and principal place of business are 

located at 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC. 

17. The Republican Party is one of the two major political parties in Michigan within 

the meaning of Michigan Election Law, Mich. Comp. Laws §168.16. Defendant Macomb 

County Republican party is a county committee of the Republican Party in Michigan under 
7

Michigan Election Law, Mich. Comp. Laws §168.602; its office is located at 48711 Van Dyke 

Ave., Shelby Township, Michigan.

18. Defendant Michigan Republican Party is the state central committee of the 

Republican Party of Michigan constituted under Michigan Election Law, Mich. Comp. Laws

§168.597. The Michigan Republican Party is located at Secchia-Weiser Michigan Republican 

Center, 520 Seymour St., Lansing, Michigan.

19. Defendant Republican National Committee is the governing body of the 

Republican Party of the United States and is the “national committee” of the Republican Party 

within the meaning of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as amended, 2 U.S.C. 

§ 431(14). The RNC operates and does business in all 50 states, including the State of Michigan,

and the District of Columbia. The RNC’s headquarters and principal place of business are 

located at 310 First Street, Washington, D.C. The Michigan Republican Party is the state party 

duly recognized and treated by the RNC as the state Republican Party for the State of Michigan 

under the Rules of the RNC.

20. Defendants Macomb County Republican Party, Michigan Republican Party, and, 

on information and belief, the RNC (“Defendant Republicans”) are acting in concert and with 

express and implicit agreement to engage in “election integrity” schemes – a euphemism for 

voter suppression – including, but not limited to, the “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme 

that is the subject of this Complaint. Defendant Republicans stated in the press that they are 

taking overt steps, including the acquisition or preparation of lists of homes subject to 

foreclosure proceedings and public announcement – that is, the beginning of the suppression 

effort – to accomplish their voter suppression goals.
8

21. Defendants John Doe Nos. 1-100 are individuals, who have been or may be 

selected by Defendant Republicans, to serve as challengers on Election Day and who will 

implement the Defendant Republicans’ “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme to harass and 

intimidate voters in Macomb County, Michigan. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This case is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this action 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory and injunctive relief is 

authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

23. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a 

substantial part of the real and immediate harm faced by Plaintiffs is threatened in this judicial 

district, and at least one defendant resides in this judicial district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

History of Defendants’ Voter Suppression Tactics

24. Defendant Republicans have a long history of engaging in coordinated, systematic 

campaigns to suppress and deny the right to vote of American citizens. Those campaigns are 

often targeted at various racial groups, language minorities, or individuals of low or modest 

economic circumstances whom Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to support them in 

political campaigns.

25. The instances of such voter-suppression tactics are many, but a few examples 

should suffice. In 1981, Defendant RNC, working with a state party and under the guise of a 

“Ballot Security Task Force,” created lists of voters in predominantly African-American 

precincts and sent them letters in the mail. If a letter came back as undeliverable (approximately
9

45,000 letters), Defendant RNC compiled a challenge list to attempt to remove all such 

individuals from the voter rolls. The “Task Force” allegedly used off-duty sheriffs and police 

officers to watch polling places and posted signs to warn voters that the “Task Force” was 

patrolling and that it was a crime to violate the election laws. Following commencement of a 

lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), Defendant RNC was subject to a 

consent decree prohibiting them from undertaking such activities where the purpose or 

significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting. Consent Order, 

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee, CA No. 81-3876 (D.N.J., 

entered Nov. 1, 1982). 

26. Four years later, in 1986, Defendant RNC engaged in similar “ballot security” 

tactics in Louisiana, attempting to have 31,000 voters removed from the voter registration rolls 

simply because a piece of mail had been returned. As a result of these voter-suppression tactics, 

the RNC was again forced into court, and the New Jersey consent decree was re-opened and 

extended to prohibit the RNC, its agents, employees, and parties acting in concert from engaging 

in direct-mail campaigns targeted at voters on voter-registration lists to a) use the letters returned 

to compile vote challenge lists; b) make such challenges; and c) deter registered voters from 

voting. The consent decree prohibits Defendant RNC from engaging in such activities without 

prior approval by the court. Settlement Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, DNC v. RNC, CA 

No. 86-3972 (D.N.J. entered July 27, 1987). 

27. In 2004, the Republican Party of Ohio, acting in concert with the Defendant RNC, 

engaged in the same tactics once again, compiling a list of more than 35,000 voters in the State 

of Ohio and seeking to have all 35,000 removed from the voter-registration rolls on the eve of 

the election. This voter suppression scheme led to mass chaos in the Ohio election process, with 
10

election officials across the State being diverted from activities essential to the orderly 

administration of elections to hold “hearings” on each of the 35,000 challenges – all of which 

were based on nothing other than the return of a single postcard (many of which were 

misaddressed). On the eve of the 2004 election, the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Ohio found the Republican’s mass challenge process and the resulting chaos a 

violation of the Due Process Clause and enjoined the conduct of these hearings. Miller v. 

Blackwell, 348 F. Supp. 2d 916 (S.D. Ohio 2004), aff’d, 388 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2004). Based on 

the involvement of the RNC in this challenge program, the District Court for the District of New 

Jersey also found that this mass challenge program violated the 1982 Consent Decree and 

enjoined the RNC, its officers and agents from using their challenger list, based on the returned 

mailings, in the November 2004 general election. Order, DNC v. RNC, CA No. 81-3876 (D.N.J., 

entered Nov. 1, 2004). The Court’s order was stayed by the Third Circuit en banc, without 

opinion. 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22689 (3d Cir. 2004). 

28. Although mass challenge programs such as these are often referred to with benign 

sounding names such as “ballot security” or “election integrity” programs, they have but one 

purpose – to discourage, intimidate, and suppress the vote of individuals whom Defendant 

Republicans believe are unlikely to vote for them. The systematic attempt to engage in voter 

suppression by creating massive lists of voters and challenging them on the claim that the voters 

do not reside in the locations listed on the voter registration rolls has a name; it is called 

“caging.” Defendant Republicans engage in this conduct precisely because they believe it 

works: Directly or indirectly, it strips the fundamental right to vote from individuals whom 

Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to vote for their candidates.
11

29. Federal law provides substantial protection to prevent voters from being removed 

from rolls of registered voters as an election is approaching. The National Voter Registration 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6, prohibits States from engaging in any effort to systematically remove 

voters from the list of eligible voters unless that effort was i) was completed more than 90 days 

before the date of the federal election and ii) is uniform (i.e., applied to everyone in the 

jurisdiction), non-discriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 42 

U.S.C. § 1977gg-6. Through the mass, systematic “lose your home, lose your vote” challenge 

process, Defendant Republicans are trying to do what federal law expressly prohibits state 

election officials from doing (even if they were to do it in a neutral and non-discriminatory 

fashion, which this is not): purge the voter rolls of voters on election day itself, thereby 

infringing on their ability to cast a ballot for federal office.

Voter Suppression circa 2008 

30. Defendant Republicans in this case appear to have plotted a new type of voter 

suppression tactic, similar to caging, but which exploits the devastating impact of the Nation’s 

home-mortgage crisis and threatens directly the rights of those teetering on the edge of losing 

their homes. 

31. The foreclosure crisis in the United States has reached epidemic proportions, 

especially in Michigan. The sub-prime lending crisis has led to thousands of Americans being 

unable to pay their mortgages, leaving them at risk of foreclosure. 

32. The mortgage crisis has hit the Nation, Michigan, and Macomb County in 

devastating fashion. According to RealtyTrac’s July 2008 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, 

foreclosure filings were reported by 272,171 U.S. properties in July 2008, 8% more than the 
12

prior month and 55% more than in July 2007. In July 2008 alone, one of every 464 U.S. 

households received a foreclosure filing.

33. In Michigan, there were 2,174 foreclosure filings in July alone. In Macomb 

County, there have been 11,435 sheriff deeds and tax forfeitures so far in 2008. Approximately 

1 out of 285 households in Macomb County has been the subject of a foreclosure filing. 

34. In the face of such a crisis and the distress among low- and middle-income voters, 

Defendants have sought to exploit the difficulties facing Individual Plaintiffs and others similarly 

situated for their own political gain. According to press accounts, the chairperson of the 

Republican Party in Macomb County intends for Republicans to challenge the right to vote of 

Michigan residents whose house has been the subject of a foreclosure notice. James Carabelli, 

quoted in the Michigan Messenger, said “[w]e will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make 

sure people aren’t voting from those addresses.” Eartha Jane Melzer, Lose Your House, Lose 

Your Vote, Michigan Messenger, Sept. 10, 2008, http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/loseyour-house-lose-your-vote. The Defendants’ threat to Plaintiffs is thus not hypothetical: 

Defendant Republicans have already announced through the news media that they are acquiring 

foreclosure lists and intend to use them. 

35. The “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme being perpetrated by the Macomb 

County Republicans is part of a broader state and nationwide campaign by the Republican Party 

to suppress the vote. Press accounts report that the Michigan Republican Party, working with the 

national Republican party, intends to engage in a coordinated “election integrity” program 

designed to stop people from voting, including because they live in homes for which foreclosure 

notices have been filed. A press report indicates that the Chairman of the Republican Party in 

Franklin County, Ohio, where the state and national parties’ 2004 “caging” operation was shut 
13

down by a federal court, has similarly indicated that Republicans have not ruled out challenging 

voters due to the existence of a foreclosure notice. Robert Vitale, Foreclosed-on Voters Using 

Old Addresses Could Snag Election, Columbus Dispatch, July 6, 2008, at 1A. 

The Foreclosure Process

36. At the core of Defendant Republicans’ scheme is the notion that appearance of an 

address on a foreclosure list means there is good reason to believe that a registered voter listed 

on the voter registration rolls with such an address no longer can vote at the local polling place 

and/or is not properly registered to vote. That is simply wrong. Placement of a house on a 

public foreclosure notice says nothing about whether an individual who has previously registered 

at that address remains eligible to vote. Thus, appearance on a foreclosure list provides no 

rational basis on which to challenge and deter a registered voter’s right to vote.

37. First, that a foreclosure notice has been filed against a particular property says 

nothing about who resides there. Foreclosure addresses ownership, not residence, which 

determines the appropriate location for voting. There is no basis, for example, for challenging 

the right to vote of all of the renters who reside in an apartment building that has been 

foreclosed. Yet Defendant Republicans’ mass challenge program would burden all of these 

voters’ rights to vote by subjecting them to a mass challenge process. 

38. Second, even if the resident and the owner of a property are one and the same, 

publication of a foreclosure notice begins foreclosure proceedings, but it does not require anyone 

to leave his or her home. It is commonplace throughout the United States for homeowners who 

are unable to make mortgage payments to remain in their homes well after foreclosure 

proceedings have begun in order to negotiate with lenders and attempt to refinance. In 

Michigan, homeowners may have up to one year and four weeks following initial notice of 
14

foreclosure before they must actually leave the home, even assuming the foreclosure proceeds to 

conclusion without a redemption or other agreement. As a result, there is no reason to believe 

that someone who has received a foreclosure notice has actually left his or her home. 

39. The most common method of foreclosure in Michigan is by advertisement. Under 

this type of foreclosure, the lender must advertise the foreclosure sale in the local newspaper at 

least once a week for four consecutive weeks prior to the sale. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3208. 

Michigan law does not require residents to leave their homes once a foreclosure notice has been 

published, and there is no reason to think that anyone would change residences just because 

notice of foreclosure has been published in the newspaper.

40. Even after a foreclosure sale has taken place, Michigan homeowners have a right 

to stay in their homes while they attempt to “redeem” their property by paying the foreclosure 

sale price plus interest. Indeed, Michigan law actually encourages people to remain in their 

homes after the foreclosure sale by reducing the time period for redemption if the foreclosed 

property is found to have been abandoned. In all cases in which the mortgagee chooses to 

remain in his or her home, the right of redemption lasts six months after the foreclosure sale, and 

in many cases may last a full year. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3240(7)-(12). Only after this 

redemption period has passed does the deed purchased at the foreclosure sale take effect. Id. 

§§ 600.3232, 600.3236. Therefore, in many cases a person whose home has been foreclosed 

will not be required to move out until more than a year after the first foreclosure notice was 

issued.

41. In addition, even if a voter has moved from an address, the Michigan election law 

establishes a grace period to permit voters to vote at their old precinct based on their old address. 

Under Michigan law, voters who move within the city or town are still eligible to vote in their 
15

old precinct after they move, and voters who move to a new city or town within 60 days of an 

election are still eligible to vote in their old precinct even after they move. Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 168.507a(1) & (2). That is, Michigan law provides for a voter who was registered to vote in 

Roseville, and who moved within Roseville, to vote at the voter’s old precinct. Similarly, 

Michigan law provides for a voter who was registered to vote in Macomb County but moved 

from Macomb County on September 5, 2008, the beginning of this year’s relocation grace 

period, to vote at the voter’s old precinct for the November 4 election.

42. Between the four-week foreclosure notice period that must precede any 

foreclosure sale, the 6- to 12-month redemption period in which a homeowner may continue to 

reside in a foreclosed home that has been sold, and the 60-day relocation grace period, a voter 

whose home appeared in a foreclosure notice on or after August 8, 2007 may well be entitled to 

vote in her original precinct in the November Election – even assuming that the foreclosure went 

forward, the home was sold, the homeowner did not purchase it during the redemption period, 

and the homeowner moved outside the town. Huge numbers of voters whose homes are 

foreclosed and are forced to move, and are living with friends or family, are still eligible to vote. 

Of course, in many cases the foreclosure process will have been stopped at some point as the 

homeowner comes to an agreement with the lender.

The Election-Day Challenge Process

43. Defendant Republicans seek to implement their “lose your home, lose your vote” 

scheme by acting under those provisions of Michigan law which authorize political party 

“challengers” to be part of the State’s election machinery. On Election Day, Michigan law 

provides for “challengers,” appointed by political parties or other organizations, to observe 

election procedures, watch for improper activities, and challenge the voting rights of ineligible 
16

voters. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.733(1). The board of election inspectors provides space for 

the challengers at the polls, during both the casting of ballots and the canvass of votes. Id. 

§ 168.733(1). 

44. State law empowers challengers, as part of the election machinery, to have an 

immediate and direct impact on the people who are challenged. When a voter is challenged 

when there are several voters in line, Michigan law provides for the “challenged person shall 

stand to one side until after unchallenged voters have had an opportunity to vote, when his case 

shall be taken up.” Id. § 168.728. Poll workers may thus force particular voters to wait, for no 

reason other than that a challenger has picked them out, for as long as it takes to let the other 

voters pass before resolving the challenge.

45. To resolve a challenge, Michigan law provides for the voters to be questioned to 

determine the voter’s eligibility. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.729. The “lose your home, lose your 

vote” scheme adopted by the Defendant Republicans demonstrates that it is their intent to 

attempt to use this challenge process to ensure that voters are asked publicly about their 

appearance on a foreclosure list, the foreclosure of their home, and personal matters that have 

absolutely nothing to do with the eligibility of the voter to vote. Once a challenge is initiated, a 

voter who refuses to answer questions risks being denied the right to vote. Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 168.729. The law also permits challengers to contest the eligibility of citizens who vote 

absentee and who will not even be present to address any questions. Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 168.733(1) & (2).

46. Michigan law does, however, limit the challengers’ ability to challenge 

individuals’ voting rights, permitting challenges only to a voter “who the challenger has good 

reason to believe is not a registered elector.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.733(1)(c). As discussed 
17

above, the appearance of a house on a foreclosure list provides no rational basis for challenging a 

voter and thus does not give a partisan challenger a “good reason to believe” that the voter is not 

qualified to vote. The sole purpose of engaging in such mass, systematic challenges is to 

intimidate voters from showing up or, if they do, to attempt to humiliate them publicly and thus 

suppress the right to vote of individuals whom Defendant Republicans do not believe are likely 

to support them – but who will vote for candidates supported by Obama for America and the 

Democratic National Committee.

The Harm to Plaintiffs 

47. The Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to 

vote in elections for federal office. The right is fundamental, one of the most important in our 

democratic society, and is protected by Articles I and II of the Constitution, the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments, and numerous federal statutes. Any burden on it, any infringement of 

it, any threat to it demands a remedy.

48. Mass challenges based on foreclosure notices will infringe on the fundamental 

right of Individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated to cast their ballot for multiple 

reasons. First, mass challenges based on irrelevant information will intimidate voters from even 

going to the polls if they fear that they will face scrutiny about their financial situation and the 

status of their mortgage payments. Second, mass challenges based on foreclosure lists erect 

additional hoops – which have no rational basis – for voters to jump through in order to vote. 

Such obstacles are not legitimately connected with voter qualifications or eligibility and serve no 

objective other than to impose an undue burden on, and therefore suppress, the vote. Third, mass 

challenges will result in some voters being improperly denied the right to vote on Election Day, 

either because they will not be able to wait the indeterminate amount of time to go through the 
18

mass challenge process or will fear having to answer intrusive questions that Republican 

challengers will insist be asked. Fourth, mass challenges will clog the polling places, leading to 

long lines in economically distressed neighborhoods and making it more difficult for Individual 

Plaintiffs and all voters to cast their ballots, thereby impinging on the right to vote for no 

legitimate purpose and interfering with the orderly administration of the electoral process. 

49. Plaintiffs Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee are 

similarly harmed. Interference with the voting rights of those who intend to vote for candidates 

supported by these organizations is a clear harm not only to the organizations themselves, but to 

the millions of voters nationwide who have chosen to associate themselves with Obama for 

America and the DNC, and on whose behalf Obama for America and the DNC are conducting 

comprehensive voter registration and voter mobilization efforts in Michigan and around the 

country. In support of these voters and the registration and mobilization programs conducted for 

their benefit, Obama for America and the DNC are joining the Individual Plaintiffs in their fight 

against the Republicans’ “lose your home, lose your vote” strategy.

50. The sole purpose for using foreclosure lists as a basis for mass challenges is to 

prevent Michigan voters whom Defendant Republicans believe are unlikely to vote for their 

candidates from voting and thereby to deprive them, directly or indirectly, of their right to vote. 

Recent Statements by Defendant Republicans

51. After creating a firestorm in the state of Michigan by announcing their “lose your 

home, lose your vote” voter suppression scheme, Defendant Republicans have now said, 

variously, that they “have no plans to do anything,” http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4231/ 

republicans-recant-plans-to-foreclose-voters-but-admit-other-strategies; that they are “unfamiliar 

with” any “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme, http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4231 
19

/republicans-recant-plans-to-foreclose-voters-but-admit-other-strategies; that they will not 

engage in the conduct alleged by this complaint, http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ 

article?AID= 2008809120346; and that they intend to engage in traditional caging (using 

returned mail to make en masse challenges to voters before or at the polls), 

http://www.michiganmessenger.com /4231/republicans-recant-plans-to-foreclose-voters-butadmit-other-strategies – the very unlawful activity which the Defendant RNC and its agents are 

forbidden to undertake under a preexisting consent decree and in which the Ohio Republican 

Party was forbidden to engage in 2004. 

52. These public relations maneuvers under pressure, which sow further voter 

confusion while sending who-knows-what instructions to party operatives, provide Plaintiffs and 

those similarly situated little comfort when compared with the Defendant Republicans’ clear 

statements on the record of their plans and their long history of voter suppression tactics. The 

media outlet that broke the story initially has confirmed that it stands by the account of the 

GOP’s clear statement that it would use the foreclosure notices. Jefferson Morley, Messenger 

Rejects GOP Plea for Retraction, Michigan Messenger, Sept. 12, 2008, http://www.michigan

messenger.com/4313/messenger-rejects-gop-plea-for-retraction. Indeed, former GOP operatives 

have subsequently confirmed the plan’s usefulness, calling it “a very smart thing to do,” and 

have explained that going after foreclosure victims is tactically designed to target voters who 

would not support the Defendant Republicans’ candidates. See Eartha Jane Melzer, Former 

GOP Operative Explains Why Republicans Will Use Foreclosure Lists To Block Voters, 

Michigan Messenger, Sept. 15, 2008, http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4414/former-gopoperative-explains-why-republicans-will-use-foreclosure-lists-to-block-voters.
20

53. Reports of similar considerations in Ohio suggest a national program. In fact, in 

hastily responding to public pressures with a denial of the scheme alleged here, a counsel for 

GOP challengers acknowledged to the press that the party intended to engage in “caging”: “I 

think so. I know this has been done in years past.” Eartha Jane Melzer, Lose Your House, Lose 

Your Vote, Michigan Messenger, Sept. 10, 2008, http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/loseyour-house-lose-your-vote. 

54. Even the Macomb County Clerk, Carmilla Sabaugh, has concluded that the 

Republicans’ informal denials are insufficient and has noted that public confusion resulting from 

the Defendant Republicans’ statements on the “lose your home, lose your vote” scheme. After 

hearing multiple concerns from concerned voters, the Clerk concluded that it was necessary to 

issue a press release on September 12 to try to reassure voters that “[c]itizens whose homes are 

foreclosed still have the right to vote!” However, she expressed concern that she was powerless 

to stop the “lose your home, lose your vote” strategy: “The lists are public and if the alleged 

GOP plan is for real a county register of deeds would have no authority to stop Republicans from 

using foreclosure lists to challenge voters at the polls.” She also cited a recent lawsuit, argued by 

GOP lawyers, that prevented the Clerk’s Office from mass mailing absent voter applications to 

all senior citizens within a city or township. See Carmella Sabaugh, Press Release, You Do Not 

Have To Own Property In Order To Vote, at Least Since 1850 (Sept. 12, 2008). An enforceable 

judgment on the record in this matter would go much farther to protect the rights of the group of 

voters whom Defendant Republicans have said they seek to disenfranchise.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments)

55. Plaintiffs reallege each allegation contained in each of the paragraphs above as if 

fully set forth herein.
21

56. In exercising powers specifically conferred by Michigan statute, in a position for 

which powers will be exercised in a physical location, the polling place, at which they can and 

will be present only by virtue of the state statute, Defendants and/or their agents will be acting

under color of state law when challenging a voter’s eligibility to vote at the general election in 

Michigan on November 4, 2008.

57. Upon information and belief, Defendants have publicly stated that they intend to 

challenge voters’ eligibility based on foreclosure of the voters’ residences.

58. Defendants’ challenge of Individual Plaintiffs’ eligibility on the basis of 

foreclosure will place an undue burden on Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights in violation of the First 

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Absent 

injunctive relief, plaintiffs are likely to suffer both the particularized injury of the loss of their 

vote in the November 4, 2008 election and the concrete harms that go with it.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))

59. Plaintiffs reallege each allegation contained in each of the paragraphs above as if 

fully set forth herein.

60. Section 1985(3) of Title 42 prohibits private parties from conspiring to deprive a 

class of voters of the equal protection of the laws and from conspiring to intimidate citizens who 

are lawfully entitled to vote from giving their support or advocacy in a legal manner in any 

election for Federal office. 

61. On information and belief, Defendants here entered into an agreement to 

intimidate and deny voters whose names have appeared on a foreclosure list their right to vote in 

the November 4, 2008 General Election. Defendants singled out the class of voters whose 

homes are being foreclosed because they believed that those voters, who are suffering the most 
22

from current economic difficulties, do not support Republican candidates. Defendants are thus 

preparing lists of voters or addresses corresponding to foreclosure notices and further discussed 

plans for challenging voters whose homes have appeared in those notices. They have further 

spoken publicly about their plans, with the intent of both creating a false impression that voters 

whose homes have appeared on foreclosure notices are not eligible to vote and of intimidating 

voters from showing up to vote, for fear that they will be forced to publicly discuss their 

foreclosures in order to win back their right to vote. Those actions, just as Defendants intended, 

have intimidated voters, including Individual Plaintiffs, and threaten to discourage them from 

performing their constitutionally protected rights.

62. Section 1985(3) provides its own right of action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 

request of this Court the following equitable relief:

A. An order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action and 

appointing Individual Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel to 

represent the class;

B. A temporary, preliminary, and/or permanent order, prohibiting the Defendants, 

their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons 

acting in concert with each or any of them, from challenging Michigan voters on 

the basis of the presence of particular property on a listing of foreclosure filings;

C. An order declaring that the presence of a particular property on a listing of 

foreclosure filings is not a reasonable basis on which to lodge a challenge to a 
23

voter’s registration and a systematic plan to challenge such voters at the polls 

violates federal law;

D. Attorney fees and costs of this litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 42 U.S.C. 

1973gg-9(c) or any other valid basis; 

E. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary or proper.

Dated: September 16, 2008 Respectfully submitted,

/s/James R. Bruinsma

James R. Bruinsma (P48531)

MYERS NELSON DILLON & SHIERK, PLLC

125 Ottawa Ave., N.W. Suite 270

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Email: jbruinsma@mnds-pllc.com

Tel.: 616-233-9640

Fax: 616-233-9642

Counsel for individual plaintiffs

/s/with consent of Mary Ellen Gurewitz

Mary Ellen Gurewitz (P25724)

SACHS WALDMAN, P.C.

1000 Farmer St.

Detroit, MI 48226-2899

Email: megurewitz@sachswaldman.com

Tel.: 313-965-3464

Fax: 313-965-4602

Counsel for Obama for America and 

Democratic National Committee

OF COUNSEL:

Robert F. Bauer

General Counsel, OBAMA FOR AMERICA

607 Fourteenth St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Tel.: 202-638-6600

Fax: 202-434-1690

Counsel for Obama for America
24

Joseph E. Sandler

General Counsel, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, P.C.

300 M St., SE Suite 1102

Washington, DC 20003

Tel.: 202-479-1111

Fax: 202-479-1115

Counsel for Democratic National Committee