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

Heading: The Justification

Text: The next step under Anderson-Burdick is to “consider the State’s justifications for the restrictions.” Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628, 641 (6th Cir. 2019). Because Michigan’s ballotaccess laws as applied to Kishore and Santa Cruz impose an intermediate burden, the state need only demonstrate that it has “legitimate interests to impose the burden that outweigh it.” Thompson, 959 F.3d at 811. In considering the legitimate interests presented by the State, “the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests; it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.” Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789. Michigan provides two reasons for its ballot-access laws that this court has already determined are legitimate. First, the State contends that the signature requirement ensures that a candidate has a modicum of support before appearing on the ballot in order to further the State’s interest in a fair and orderly election by avoiding ballot overcrowding, frivolous candidates, and voter confusion. See Hawkins, 2020 WL 4435524, at ; see also Schmitt, 933 F.3d at 641. No. 20-1661 Kishore, et al. v. Whitmer, et al. Page 7 Second, Michigan contends that the filing deadline is essential to ensure an orderly, timely election. Kishore does not meaningfully dispute these interests, which, as we observed in Hawkins, --- F.3d at ---, 2020 WL 4435524, at , Thompson, 959 F.3d at 811, and Esshaki, 813 F. App’x at 171, are legitimate.