Opinion ID: 4558221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Preliminary-Injunction Factors

Text: The other preliminary-injunction factors also support Michigan. See Thompson, 959 F.3d at 807. When analyzing the balance of equities, “[the Supreme] Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam); Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam). This principle applies here. Michigan has indicated that we must resolve the appeal by September 3 so that its ballot may be timely certified. In addition, by failing to collect even a single signature during times in which there were no restrictions, Plaintiffs have in some respects created the need for No. 20-1661 Kishore, et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 8 the emergency relief. See Morgan v. White, 964 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). As the district court also recognized, although Plaintiffs decided not to seek any signatures in March, they waited more than three months to file this action in mid-June. See Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942, 1944–45 (2018) (per curiam); cf. Little v. Reclaim Idaho, --- S. Ct. ---, 2020 WL 4360897, at  (U.S. July 30, 2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in the grant of stay).