U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Port Huron) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18−cv−12722−RHC−SDD

CLOSED

College Democrats at the University of Michigan et al v. Johnson et al Assigned to: District Judge Robert H. Cleland Referred to: Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins DavisM Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/30/2018 Date Terminated: 06/06/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

College Democrats at the University of Michigan

represented by Brian Simmonds Marshall Perkins Coie LLP 700 13th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 202−654−6200 Fax: 202−654−6211 Email: BMarshall@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hayley Lara Berlin Perkins Coie LLP 700 13th St NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005−3960 202−654−6291 Email: hberlin@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc E. Elias Perkins Coie 607 Fourteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005−2011 202−628−6600 Email: MElias@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Allan Totten Michigan State University College of Law 334 Law College Building East Lansing, MI 48824 517−432−6935 Fax: 517−432−6801 Email: mark.totten@law.msu.edu TERMINATED: 01/03/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sambo Dul Perkins Coie LLP Suite 2000 2901 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−351−8204 Fax: 602−648−7034 Email: sdul@perkinscoie.com TERMINATED: 01/25/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacki Lynn Anderson Perkins Coie LLP 700 Thirteenth St.

Plaintiff College Democrats at Michigan State University
Plaintiff Michigan Federation of College Democrats
V.

Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 202−654−1760 Fax: 202−654−6211 Email: jackianderson@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Simmonds Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hayley Lara Berlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc E. Elias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Allan Totten (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sambo Dul (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacki Lynn Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Simmonds Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hayley Lara Berlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc E. Elias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Allan Totten (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sambo Dul (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/25/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacki Lynn Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ruth Johnson
Defendant Sally Williams

represented by Denise C. Barton MI Dept of Atty Gen Public Employment, Elections and Torts Division P.O. Box 30736 525 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI 48909−8236 517−373−6434 Fax: 517−373−2454 Email: AG−PEET@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather S. Meingast MI Dept of Attorney General Appellate Division P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 517−335−7659 Email: meingasth@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Denise C. Barton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather S. Meingast (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/30/2018
08/31/2018
08/31/2018 08/31/2018 08/31/2018 09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/07/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats against All Defendants. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645−6885434 − Fee: $ 400. County of 1st Plaintiff: Washtenaw − County Where Action Arose: Washtenaw − County of 1st Defendant: Ingham. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (LGra) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
2 SUMMONS Issued for *Ruth Johnson* (LGra) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
3 SUMMONS Issued for *Sally Williams* (LGra) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Allan Totten appearing on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Totten, Mark) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
5 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Sally Williams served on 08/31/2018. (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
6 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Ruth Johnson served on 08/31/2018. (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Jacki Lynn Anderson on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
8 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Denise C. Barton appearing on behalf of Ruth Johnson, Sally Williams (Barton, Denise) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/07/2018 09/07/2018 09/07/2018 09/07/2018 09/08/2018
09/08/2018 09/10/2018

9 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Heather S. Meingast appearing on behalf of Ruth Johnson, Sally Williams (Meingast, Heather) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
10 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Marc E. Elias on behalf of College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. (Elias, Marc) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats against Ruth Johnson, Sally Williams. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Declaration of Jacki Anderson, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Expert Report of Jonathan Rodden, # 4 Exhibit 2 − Expert Report of Peter Levine and Prabhat Gautam, # 5 Exhibit 3 − Michigan Senate, March 18, 1999 Transcript, # 6 Exhibit 4 − Floor Session, Michigan House of Representatives, # 7 Exhibit 5 − Driver License/Voter Address, # 8 Exhibit 6 − Motor/Voter Implementation, # 9 Exhibit 7 − Michigan Senate Journal, 90th Legislature, Regular Session, # 10 Exhibit 8 − Michigan Opinion of the Attorney General, No. 6930, # 11 Exhibit 9 − Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 1, # 12 Exhibit 10 − Governors Remarks upon Signing SB 432 into Law, # 13 Exhibit 11 − Michigans Stabenow challenges Abraham for Senate, # 14 Exhibit 12 − Statement of Organization, # 15 Exhibit 13 − Cook Political Report, # 16 Exhibit 14 − NATIONAL JOURNALS CONGRESS DAILY, # 17 Exhibit 15 − Detroit News, # 18 Exhibit 16 − Fix the System, # 19 Exhibit 17 − Its Strictly the Party Line in Michigan Primary, # 20 Exhibit 18 − Whos Afraid of the Big Bad Vote?, # 21 Exhibit 19 − West Michigan Clerks Debunk Voter Fraud Claims, # 22 Exhibit 20 − Michigan is the New Illinois in Voter Fraud Myths, # 23 Exhibit 21 − Michigans Machiavelli: How Congressman Rogers Stole Students Votes, # 24 Exhibit 22 − MSU YouVote, # 25 Exhibit 23 − Voting Tips for College Students, # 26 Exhibit 24 − Voting Tips for College Students, # 27 Exhibit 25 − New Law Affects College Voters, # 28 Exhibit 26 − Slices of life from East Lansing elections, # 29 Exhibit 27 − Letter from Carolyn L. Grawi, # 30 Exhibit 28 − Letter from Marc Elias to Ruth Johnson, # 31 Exhibit 29 − Clerks Cant Circumvent Voting Rules, # 32 Exhibit 30 − Update: Michigans Voting Laws, # 33 Exhibit 31 − Election Inspectors Procedure Manual, # 34 Exhibit 32 − Project Vote, # 35 Exhibit 33 − Memorandum from Jean Golden, # 36 Exhibit 34 − Elections Task Force Report and Recommendations, # 37 Exhibit 35 − Opinion and Order, # 38 Exhibit 36 − Statement of Chris Swope, # 39 Exhibit 37 − Statement from Dusty Farmer, # 40 Exhibit 38 − Statement from Clerk Barb Byrum, # 41 Exhibit 39 − Letter from Chief Deputy Attorney General Carol L. Isaacs to the Honorable Michael D. Bishop, # 42 Exhibit 40 − Letter from Richard A. Bandstra, # 43 Exhibit 41 − Letter from Christopher M. Thomas, # 44 Exhibit 42 − Could Michigans restrictive student voter law hurt Bernie Sanders?, # 45 Exhibit B − Declaration of Gilda Jacobs, # 46 Exhibit C − Declaration of Aaron Stephens, # 47 Exhibit D − Declaration of Camron Razdar, # 48 Exhibit E − Declaration of Lisa Brown, # 49 Exhibit F − Declaration of Mark Miller, # 50 Exhibit G − Declaration of Dianne Byrum, # 51 Exhibit H − Declaration of Eli Pales, # 52 Exhibit I − Declaration of Kellie Lounds, # 53 Exhibit J − Declaration of Norma Bailey, # 54 Exhibit K − Declaration of Rebeckas Miller, # 55 Exhibit L − Declaration of Robert Joerg, # 56 Exhibit M − Declaration of Barb Byrum, # 57 Exhibit N − Declaration of Chris Swope, # 58 Exhibit O − Declaration of Dusty Farmer, # 59 Exhibit P − Declaration of Kylie Novak, # 60 Exhibit Q − Declaration of Larry Kestenbaum) (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/08/2018)
14 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration by All Plaintiffs. (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/08/2018)
15 RESPONSE to 14 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration filed by Ruth Johnson, Sally Williams. (Meingast, Heather) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018 09/11/2018 09/12/2018
09/14/2018
09/20/2018 09/21/2018
09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/25/2018 09/26/2018 09/28/2018 01/02/2019 01/03/2019 01/03/2019 01/25/2019 03/01/2019

16 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 14 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration filed by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − September 7, 2018 Email) (Anderson, Jacki) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
17 ERRATA Sheet re: 15 Response to Motion filed by Sally Williams, Ruth Johnson. by Ruth Johnson, Sally Williams (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Errata Sheet) (Meingast, Heather) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER DENYING 14 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration filed by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. (Separate Order to be issued) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
18 ORDER DENYING 14 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration filed by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats, and Setting a., ( Scheduling Conference for 9/20/2018 01:30 PM IN PORT HURON, MI before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Robert H. Cleland: Scheduling Conference held on 9/20/2018; Order to follow. (WBar) (Entered: 09/20/2018)
19 ORDER Setting Hearing and Scheduling Deadlines for Submissions re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction :( Response due by 10/1/2018, Motion Hearing set for 10/19/2018 09:30 AM IN DETROIT before District Judge Robert H. Cleland)(See Order for Additional Dates). Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (WBar) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Sambo Dul on behalf of College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. (Dul, Sambo) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
21 STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time for State Defendants to Respond to 12 Amended Complaint; Responsive Pleading due by 10/1/2018, Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (WBar) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
22 NOTICE by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats of withdrawal of 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Dul, Sambo) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 10/19/18 is Cancelled. (WBar) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
23 STIPULATED ORDER Staying Proceedings; Vacating 19 Order; and Setting Status Conference for 1/9/2019 10:00 AM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland, Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (WBar) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by Hayley Lara Berlin on behalf of College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. (Berlin, Hayley) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
25 ORDER of the substitution of Attorney Hayley Berlin in place of Mark Totten as local counsel for plaintiffs with stipulation. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
26 STIPULATED ORDER to Continue Stay of Proceedings and Rescheduling Status Conference, ( Status Conference re−set for 3/8/2019 01:30 PM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland, at the US District Court, Detroit, MI Room 1061) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
27 ORDER of the Withdrawal of Attorney Sambo Dul with stipulation. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian Simmonds Marshall on behalf of College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. (Marshall, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/06/2019
04/09/2019 05/07/2019 05/31/2019
06/05/2019 06/06/2019 06/11/2019

29 STIPULATED ORDER to Continue Stay of Proceedings and Postpone Status Conference, ( TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 4/11/2019 10:00 AM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
30 STIPULATED ORDER to Continue Stay of Proceedings and Postpone Conference, ( Status Conference re−set for 5/10/2019 09:30 AM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
AT THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL − Set Deadlines/Hearings: TELEPHONIC Status Conference RE−set for 6/7/2019 09:30 AM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland (LWag) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER GRANTING 10 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
31 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by College Democrats at Michigan State University, College Democrats at the University of Michigan, Michigan Federation of College Democrats (Marshall, Brian) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Telephone Status Conference on 6/7/19 is Cancelled (LWag) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
32 ORDER of Voluntary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) (Entered: 06/11/2019)

 </s> Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.1 Page 1 of 75

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, AND THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF COLLEGE DEMOCRATS,
Plaintiffs, v. RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Michigan Secretary of State, and SALLY WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections,
Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, and THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF COLLEGE DEMOCRATS, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this COMPLAINT for DECLARATORY and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Defendant RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Michigan Secretary of State (the “Secretary”), and Defendant SALLY WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, and allege as follows:

1

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 75
NATURE OF THE CASE 1. As this Court recently observed, “Michigan has one of the most restrictive voting regimes in the country.” Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, No. 16-cv-11844, 2018 WL 3769326 at *7 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2018) (“Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute III”). This is especially true for Michigan’s youngest voters, who are particularly vulnerable to restrictive voting laws and uniquely susceptible to voter confusion. Indeed, young voters in Michigan have historically, and to this day, been the target and victims of voting rules and requirements that are both intended to and have had the effect of making it substantially, and unjustifiably, more difficult for them to understand and navigate the process so as to exercise their right to participate in Michigan’s elections and to have an equal opportunity and voice in determining who governs the communities in which they reside. As a consequence, young voters in Michigan vote at very low rates: the difference between overall turnout and youth turnout is now larger in Michigan than in any other state. 2. This action specifically challenges: (i) Michigan Public Act 118 of 1999 (“Public Act 118”), which requires that a voter’s residence for voter registration purposes match the address listed on her Michigan driver’s license, see MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 257.307(1)(c), 257.315(1); and (ii) MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.509t(2), which is the current statute that requires that those who
2

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.3 Page 3 of 75
register to vote by mail or through third-party registration drives must vote inperson the first time they vote (the “First-Time/In-Person Requirement”). While Public Act 118 and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement independently make registering and voting unduly confusing and difficult for young voters, in combination, they place nearly insurmountable barriers between many young voters and their fundamental right to vote.
3. Public Act 118 is commonly known in Michigan as “Rogers’ Law,” after then-Republican State Senator Mike Rogers, who sponsored and championed the legislation. Rogers’ Law, both by design and in practice, has made it significantly more difficult for eligible young voters—and, in particular, in-state college students who live and attend school in a region different than that where their family resides—to successfully navigate the process to exercise their right to participate in elections in Michigan. The legislative history of Rogers’ Law shows that, at the time the law was proposed, legislators were well-aware of the disproportionate and disenfranchising impact its matching-address requirement would have on young voters, particularly college students, and that it was intended to have that very impact. Indeed, revealing his true motive in sponsoring the legislation, Rogers himself stated that it is a “slap in the face to democracy” to permit “students” to “be registered in one place and live in another.” Statement of Sen. Rogers, Mich. Senate, Mar. 18, 1999 Transcript (“Tr.”) at 9. According to
3

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.4 Page 4 of 75
Rogers, “students” should “do it right,” and “vote responsibly,” i.e. not in their college communities; and they should be permitted to “register at the campus, if they feel that that’s their home” only if they “have their driver’s license moved there.” Id. at 10-11 (emphasis added).
4. Rogers’ own electoral circumstances, preceding and immediately after passage of the law, provide further evidence that the intent was to discourage young, college students from voting, and that the law accomplished precisely that. Many in the Legislature had opined that this was the case, and it quickly proved to be true. Immediately after passage of Rogers’ Law, Rogers went on to win—by 111 votes—the November 2000 election for Michigan’s 8th Congressional District (“CD-8”), which includes a large student population and the campus of Michigan State University. Rogers owes his victory in large part to the confusion and disenfranchisement of young, college-student voters resulting from the wholly unnecessary and inherently confusing law he had just championed and worked to pass.
5. Rogers’ Law particularly and disproportionately impacts young voters, especially those who attend college in Michigan while still retaining a connection to their family’s home elsewhere in the state. As compared to the general voting population, young voters are not only more likely to frequently move, but also to seek to maintain two addresses for different purposes: their
4

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.5 Page 5 of 75
residential address where they attend school for most of the year (but which regularly changes at least once a year, and in many cases more frequently), and their address at their family’s home. Rogers’ Law has caused widespread confusion among these voters, who have little to no experience with voting and navigating the surrounding election processes.
6. In particular, because of Rogers’ Law, Michigan’s young voters are regularly and persistently confused as to: (i) whether they may register to vote using their college address, if their driver’s license lists their parents’ address; (ii) whether changing their driver’s license address will result in negative consequences, including in terms of preserving health insurance coverage under their parents’ plans, qualifying as their parents’ dependent for tax purposes, and maintaining scholarships and financial aid; (iii) whether they must apply for a new driver’s license that reflects their on-campus address, if they seek to vote oncampus, and how to do so; and (iv) whether failure to comply with the matchingaddress requirement bars them from voting at their campus polling place, despite being registered there.
7. In the years since its enactment, the confusion and disenfranchisement resulting from Rogers’ Law has continued unabated. In fact, the cloud of confusion has stemmed from, and is reflected in, and perpetuated by, abundant and ongoing misinformation from election officials, local governments, universities, and the
5

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.6 Page 6 of 75
press. Defendant, the Secretary, has not only done nothing to address these rampant and persistent problems, she has actively contributed to them. Just months ago, in March 2018, the Secretary delivered remarks to a group of students at Michigan State University and told students living on or near campus that their campus address is not really their home, and therefore it would not be “fair” for students to register at their campus address. She went on to say that if students do choose to register to vote at their school address, they must first apply for and obtain a completely new driver’s license showing their school address prior to registering to vote at that address. Though neither of those statements comport with Michigan law, they comport entirely with the misleading and disenfranchising intent and resulting impact of Rogers’ Law.
8. Make no mistake: these students are almost universally legally eligible to vote in the communities in which they live and attend school. This is because they, like any other Michigan resident who is a U.S. citizen and 18 years of age or older, have a right to vote at their “residence,” which Michigan law defines to mean the place where a person “sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects, and has a regular place of lodging.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.11(1). The fact that many of Michigan’s student voters may wish to maintain, for the years during which they are attending college, their family’s home address as their permanent residence address on their driver’s license, should not disqualify them from voting
6

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.7 Page 7 of 75
in the communities where they attend school and live for the vast majority of the year. But that is precisely the effect that was both intended by Rogers’ Law and that has followed since its enactment.
9. On top of the confusion and barriers to voting created by Rogers’ Law, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement piles on an additional catch-22 for many young voters. College students, due to their young age, are more likely to be first-time voters, and because registration by mail or through a third-party registration drive is often the most convenient ways to register to vote in Michigan—particularly for young voters who often lack easy access to reliable transportation or, because they are brand new to the elections process, are more likely to not know where or how they may register in-person—many students register through those means. Indeed, many freshmen may not even become eligible to register to vote until they are already at their campuses, so they have no other option but to register by mail if they are registering using their family home address. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement prohibits these students from requesting an absentee ballot the first time they vote.
10. As the Court recognized in Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute III, “[b]etween its prohibition on early voting and restriction on absentee voting, Michigan has one of the most restrictive voting regimes in the country,” under which, “except for a limited number of qualified residents, all Michigan
7

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.8 Page 8 of 75
voters must visit the polls on Election Day.” 2018 WL 3769326 at *7. See also Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 665 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute II”).1 The result is the complete disenfranchisement of those young, first-time voters who attend school far from their family home and, who—for a myriad of reasons beyond their control, including lack of access to reliable transportation and busy, inflexible schedules—are unable to travel home to vote in-person on a Tuesday in the middle of the academic semester.
11. As a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, both independently and in combination, young voters in Michigan have faced unequal and consequential barriers in registering to vote and voting for the first time, and they have even been denied the right to vote entirely for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualification or eligibility to participate in Michigan elections. Indeed, in many cases, these laws have resulted in a chilling effect that has kept eligible young voters in Michigan from voting and registering to vote entirely due to widespread confusion about the laws’ requirements and legal effects. If Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement are not enjoined, Michigan’s young voters, who are among the most vulnerable to
1 Thirty-seven states allow early voting. 2018 WL 3769326, at *7. 8

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.9 Page 9 of 75
restrictive voting laws, will continue to be deterred and prevented from exercising their right to vote.
12. Because Rogers’ Law was intended to and specifically targets and burdens the right to vote of Michigan’s young voters, it violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. And because Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement make it unduly confusing and difficult, and in some cases impossible, for Michigan’s young voters, particularly college students, to exercise their fundamental right to vote and to participate in elections in the communities in which they live, both laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution. 14. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, the Secretary of State and the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, who are sued in their official capacity only.
9

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.10 Page 10 of 75
16. Venue is proper in the Southern Division of the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Local Court Rule 83.10, because, inter alia, the Defendants reside and do business in every county of the State and because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred there, as Plaintiff, the College Democrats at the University of Michigan, is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Plaintiff, the Michigan Federation of College Democrats, has eight chapters located in the Eastern District of Michigan.
17. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
18. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this case and Plaintiffs’ claims have occurred, been performed, or otherwise been waived.
PARTIES 19. Plaintiff, the College Democrats at the University of Michigan,2 is a student organization dedicated to increasing the participation and turnout rate of young voters in Michigan and to electing Democratic candidates. The College Democrats at the University of Michigan has over 1,000 members, around 60 of whom are active members, and all of whom are college students. To achieve its mission, the College Democrats at the University of Michigan devotes substantial 2 The College Democrats at the University of Michigan are not acting on behalf or as representatives of the University of Michigan.
10

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.11 Page 11 of 75
time, effort, and resources to encouraging voting by: (i) engaging in voter registration at various campus events; (ii) educating members of the campus community, including about candidates, issues, and the importance of voting; and (iii) engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts. As a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, both the College Democrats at the University of Michigan’s organizational mission and the voting rights of a substantial number of its members and constituency have been injured and will suffer irreparable injury. For example, many of the College Democrats at the University of Michigan’s members who are confused into believing that they must, or otherwise choose to, register to vote using their family home address rather than their campus address, will find it highly difficult—and, in some cases, impossible—to travel to their family home on Election Day to vote for the first time if they registered by mail.
20. Plaintiff, the College Democrats at Michigan State University,3 is a student organization dedicated to empowering young voters in Michigan and to electing Democratic candidates. The College Democrats at Michigan State University has approximately 40 active members, all of whom are college students. To achieve its mission, the College Democrats at Michigan State University devotes substantial time, effort, and resources to encouraging voting by: (i) 3 The College Democrats at Michigan State University are not acting on behalf or as representatives of Michigan State University.
11

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.12 Page 12 of 75
engaging in voter registration at various campus events; (ii) educating members of the campus community, including about candidates, issues, and the importance of voting; and (iii) engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts. As a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, both the College Democrats at Michigan State University’s organizational mission and the voting rights of a substantial number of its members have been and injured will suffer irreparable injury. For example, many of the College Democrats at Michigan State University’s members who are confused into believing that they must, or otherwise choose to, register to vote using their family home address rather than their campus address will find it highly difficult—and, in some cases, impossible—to travel to their family home on Election Day to vote for the first time if they registered by mail.
21. Plaintiff, the Michigan Federation of College Democrats (the “Federation”), is a statewide political organization that seeks to build and maintain a strong youth voice in the State of Michigan. The Federation’s members are comprised of 19 College Democrats chapters, all of which are run by college students who work across Michigan to mobilize student support for Democratic causes and to increase political accountability on issues relevant to Michigan youth. To achieve its mission, the Federation devotes substantial time, effort, and resources to encouraging voting by: (i) educating its members on the process of
12

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.13 Page 13 of 75
voter registration through on-the ground support and formal presentations at biannual conferences; (ii) providing financial and other support for members’ oncampus voter registration efforts; and (iii) engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts, including social media campaigns. Thus, as a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, the Federation’s organizational mission and a substantial number of its members have been and will suffer injury to both their organizational mission and voting rights.
22. Defendant, RUTH JOHNSON, is the Secretary of State of Michigan and is named as a Defendant in her official capacity. She is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the driver’s license provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.202. In addition, she is Michigan’s chief elections officer and is thus responsible for the uniform administration and implementation of Michigan election law, see MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.21, including the administration and implementation of Rogers’ Law. In this role, her responsibilities include voter outreach and voter education efforts. The Secretary is also responsible for exercising supervisory control over local election officials, and she, personally and through the conduct of her employees, officers, agents, and servants, acted under color of state law at all times relevant to this action.
23. Defendant, SALLY WILLIAMS, is the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections and is named as a Defendant in her official capacity. As the
13

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.14 Page 14 of 75
Director of Elections, she is responsible for supervising the Bureau of Elections. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.32(1). In this role, she is “vested with the powers and shall perform the duties of the secretary of state under his or her supervision, with respect to the supervision and administration of the election laws.” MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.32(1).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. Michigan’s Restrictive Voting Regime
24. As this Court recently observed, “Michigan has one of the most restrictive voting regimes in the country.” Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson III, 2018 WL 3769326, at *7.
25. Michigan has an extremely onerous and outdated voter registration system. It is one of only 13 states that does not provide for online registration.4 Thus, a qualified voter may only register to vote by mail (including through a third-party registration drive) or in person at the office of the county or municipal clerk, a department of state branch office (comparable to department of motor vehicle (“DMV”) offices in other states), or other voter registration location specifically designated by the Secretary. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509v. Further,
4 Online Voter Registration, Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures (Dec. 6, 2017), http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voterregistration.aspx.
14

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.15 Page 15 of 75
while 17 states and the District of Columbia permit same-day registration,5 Michigan requires that voter registration applications be submitted at least 30 days before the election—the longest period permissible under federal law. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.497.6 And, while 13 states and the District of Columbia automatically register eligible citizens who interact with the DMV or other state agencies unless those voters opt-out,7 Michigan requires that voters opt-in in order to be registered to vote. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.500a.8
26. Once eligible voters are registered, most states allow them to cast a ballot before Election Day, either during an early voting period or by requesting an

5 Same Day Voter Registration, Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures (March 27,

2018),

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-

registration.aspx.

6 The National Voter Registration Act requires that states ensure a voter is

registered “if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is postmarked not

later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before the date

of the election.” 52 USC § 20507(a)(1)(B). Michigan is one of only 10 states that

requires registration not less than 30 days before an election. Voter Registration

Deadlines, Vote.org (Jan. 13, 2018), https://www.vote.org/voter-registration-

deadlines/.

7 See History of AVR & Implementation Dates, Brennan Center for Justice (June

24, 2018), https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/history-avr-implementation-

dates.

8 “The secretary of state . . . shall afford a person who appears in a department of

state branch office or a person who applies for renewal of an operator’s or

chauffeur’s license . . . an opportunity to complete an application to register to vote

or to change the person’s voting registration name or address. . . .” MICH. COMP.

LAWS § 168.500a.

15

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.16 Page 16 of 75
absentee ballot.9 Michigan, however, is one of only 13 states that do not permit some form of early voting or no-excuse absentee voting. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.758; see also Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute II, 833 F.3d at 665. In addition to prohibiting early voting, Michigan imposes severe limitations on absentee voting, permitting voters to request an absentee ballot only if they meet one of the following six narrow criteria: (a) physical disability; (b) religious reason prevent attendance at the polls; (c) service as a precinct inspector in another precinct; (d) being 60 years of age or older; (e) absence from the township or city for the entire period the polls are open; or (f) confinement in jail awaiting arraignment or trial. Id. Even those who qualify for an absentee ballot must request one prior to each election unless their jurisdiction chooses to maintain a permanent absent voter list, which no jurisdiction is required to do; and clerks are prohibited from mailing absentee ballot applications without having received a verbal or written request.10
27. Within this already restrictive voting regime, Michigan’s lawmakers and election officials have had a history of targeting young voters, imposing rules
9 Absentee and Early Voting, Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures (Aug. 17, 2017), http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-earlyvoting.aspx. 10 Michigan Sec’y of State, Election Officials’ Manual Ch. 6 at 3 (2017), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/VI_Michigans_Absentee_Voting_Proce ss_265992_7.pdf.
16

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.17 Page 17 of 75
and requirements that directly suppress registration and turnout among this population, particularly college students.
28. Voter suppression targeting this group of voters in particular can be quite consequential. The electorate in Michigan has long been very closely divided in its support for the two major political parties. Most recently, in 2016, 48% of voters who cast ballots in Michigan’s 14 races for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for Republican candidates, while 47% voted for Democratic candidates. Donald Trump won the state with only 47.50% of the vote, as compared to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 47.27% of the vote share—a difference of only 10,704 votes.
29. College students comprise more than seven percent of Michigan’s voting-age population and are more likely than the general population to vote for Democratic Party candidates. In Fall 2000, 542,652 students were enrolled in Michigan institutions of higher education, while the voting-age population in 2000 was around 7.34 million. By Fall 2016, the number of students had risen to 594,895, while the estimated voting-age population was 7.68 million. At Michigan State University alone, 43,366 students were enrolled as of Fall 2000, and that number had grown to 50,340 as of Fall 2016.
17

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.18 Page 18 of 75
30. Although recent efforts to suppress the young (and particularly,
student) vote have been more subtle, Michigan has a long history of explicitly
making it more difficult for that population to participate in elections.
31. For over 75 years, beginning as early as 1893, Michigan’s statutory
provision defining residency for voting purposes had been interpreted to mean that
“a student must overcome a rebuttable presumption that he is not a resident in the
locale of the institution of learning.” Wilkins v. Bentley, 385 Mich. 670, 675 (1971)
(citing Wolcott v. Holcomb, 97 Mich. 361 (1893); People v. Osborn, 170 Mich.
143 (1912); Attorney General ex rel. Miller v. Miller, 266 Mich. 127 (1934)),
abrogated on other grounds as explained in In re Request for Advisory Opinion
Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich. 1, 33, 740 N.W.2d 444, 462 (2007).11
32. This interpretation was motivated by the fear “that the students would
have a significant political impact if they were granted the elective franchise[,] . . .
overwhelming the townspeople at the polls.” Wilkins, 385 Mich. at 691. As the
11 The provision in effect at the time, like the current statute, defined residence “for registration and voting purposes . . . to mean that place at which a person habitually sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects and has a regular place of lodging.” Wilkins, 385 Mich. at 675 (quoting MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.11(a)). And “[s]hould a person have more than 1 residence, . . . that place at which such person resides the greater part of the time shall be his or her official residence . . . .” Id. As relevant here, the statute further specified (and still does) that “[n]o elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence . . . While a student at any institution of learning . . . .” Id. (quoting MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.11(b)).
18

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.19 Page 19 of 75
Michigan Supreme Court later noted, “[c]learly, . . . [the law], as applied to students, disenfranchise[d] many interested and concerned citizens.” Id. at 687.
33. Not until 1971, after eight University of Michigan students sued following denial of their voter registration applications in Ann Arbor, did the Michigan Supreme Court invalidate that rebuttable presumption, holding that “students must be treated the same as all other registrants. No special questions, forms, identification, etc., may be required of students.” Wilkins, 385 Mich. at 694. As the Court explained, “while the law defining voting residence for other citizens . . . is clear and unequivocal, the effect of the law, as applied to students, . . . varie[d] from city to city and from local clerk to local clerk.” Id. at 677. Therefore, in Michigan, “the standards which students must meet in order to vote in the locality in which their college is located . . . [were] so vague as to be tantamount to no standards; thus each registration clerk determine[d] himself which factors will overcome the presumption against student registrability in his city.” Id. at 677-68.
34. Indeed, “Ann Arbor use[d] an elaborate questionnaire before allowing students to register,” and plaintiffs in the case “were asked questions concerning bank accounts; where they obtained their support; whether they owned or leased property; and where they spent their vacations.” Id. at 678. As the court explained, however, “these questions concerning wealth, property ownership, and travel, if
19

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.20 Page 20 of 75

used as criteria to establish residence for voting purposes, are constitutionally

impermissible.” Id.

35. Despite the Michigan Supreme Court’s admonition that “it is no

longer constitutionally permissible to exclude students from the franchise because

of the fear of the way they may vote,” the specter and manifestations of this

impermissible fear persist in Michigan’s electoral systems.

36. For example, in Ann Arbor, two City Council members represent each of the city’s five wards. City of Ann Arbor City Charter §§ 1.3, 4.1.12 Despite there

being over 46,000 students enrolled at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 201713—almost 38% of the total population of Ann Arbor14—students do not

approach a majority of any of the city’s wards. Instead, the ward boundaries have

been drawn to radiate out from the center of campus, so that each ward is shaped

like a slice of a pie, with the smallest part of that pie constituting a fraction of

campus. The result is that the student population is effectively split among the five

wards and their voting power sufficiently negated so as to make it extremely

12

http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/CharterNovember2011.pdf; see also City Council, City of

Ann

Arbor

Michigan,

https://www.a2gov.org/departments/city-

council/Pages/Home.aspx (“The City Council consists of the mayor and 10

Council members, two from each of Ann Arbor’s five wards.”).

13 Enrollment, Ann Arbor Campus, University of Michigan Office of Budget and

Planning

(Oct.

26,

2017),

http://obp.umich.edu/root/facts-

figures/students/admissions-enrollment/enrollment-umaa/.

14 See QuickFacts Ann Arbor city, Michigan, U.S. Census Bureau (July 1, 2017),

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/annarborcitymichigan/PST045217.

20

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.21 Page 21 of 75

difficult for them to command enough of the vote share to elect candidates of their

choice to the City Council.15

37.

As will be discussed, barriers to student voting also persist on

the state level, including, in particular, through the two laws that are the subject of

this challenge.

II. Rogers’ Law and the Matching Address Requirement

38. Rogers’ Law—like the rebuttable presumption against residency that

Michigan historically applied to students in college communities, and the slicing

up of the student population by Ann Arbor’s ward boundaries—is yet another

effort to hamper the electoral power and participation of young voters in Michigan.

39. Introduced on February 16, 1999 by then-State Senator Mike Rogers,

Rogers’ Law passed the Republican-controlled Legislature along party lines. Mich.

H. Journal, 90th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1358-59 (June 8, 1999); Mich. S. Journal, 90th

Leg., Reg. Sess., 1118-19 (June 10, 1999). 16

15 See Ward Boundaries Map, City Clerk, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, https://www.a2gov.org/departments/cityclerk/Elections/Pages/WardBoundariesMap.aspx; see also Austen Hufford, Drawing the Vote: Ann Arbor City Wards Split Students, The Michigan Daily (Feb. 3, 2015), https://www.michigandaily.com/article/drawing-vote-ann-arborcity-wards-split-students. 16 Prior to the enactment of Rogers’ Law in 1999, Michigan did not require voters to use the same address for purposes of their driver’s license and voter registration. On March 1, 1999, then-Attorney General of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, issued a formal opinion so concluding. See 1999 Mich. OAG No. 7010 (opining voter could maintain a driver’s license address different from his voter registration
21

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.22 Page 22 of 75
40. Rogers’ Law amended Michigan’s Motor Vehicle Code to require that
the address listed on a voter’s Michigan driver’s license match the address at which
that voter is registered to vote. In relevant part, the statute states:
The following notice shall be included to inform the applicant that under sections 509o and 509r of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.509o and 168.509r, the secretary of state is required to use the residence address provided on this application as the applicant’s residence address on the qualified voter file for voter registration and voting:
“NOTICE: Michigan law requires that the same address be used for voter registration and driver license purposes. Therefore, if the residence address you provide in this application differs from your voter registration address as it appears on the qualified voter file, the secretary of state will automatically change your voter registration to match the residence on this application, after which your voter registration at your former address will no longer be valid for voting purposes. A new voter registration card, containing the information of your polling place, will be provided to you by the clerk of the jurisdiction where your residence address is located.”
MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.307(1)(c); see also MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(1)
(“The secretary of state shall provide the person changing his or her residence
address the notice required by section 307(1)(c) that, under . . . MCL 168.509o and
168.509r, the secretary of state is required to use the residence address provided on
address, as Section 509o(3) of the Michigan Election Code, which stated that “[t]he secretary of state or a designated voter registration agency shall not allow a person to indicate a different address than the address in either the secretary of state’s or designated voter registration agency’s files to be placed in the qualified voter file,” “does not prohibit a voter from registering to vote at an address different from that listed on his or her driver’s license”).
22

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.23 Page 23 of 75
this change of address application as the person’s residence address on the qualified voter file for voter registration and voting.”).
41. Pursuant to Rogers’ Law, Michigan requires that a driver “who changes his or her residence before the expiration of a license . . . shall immediately notify the secretary of state of his or her new residence address.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(1).17 When the Secretary receives a change of address notification, she “shall change the person’s driver license record to indicate the new residence address.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(2). The Secretary is then required to send the Michigan driver “a new license or a label or some other mechanism containing the new residence address,” which must be affixed to the driver’s license. Id.
42. If the holder of a Michigan driver’s license fails to “report a change of his or her residence address” and “there is no response to a notice mailed to the residence address shown by the record of the secretary of state or if the person has provided the secretary of state a mailing address different from his or her residence address and there is no response to a notice mailed to that mailing address,” “the
17 The statute specifies that such a change of address notification must be made “in a manner prescribed by the secretary of state and may include notification by personally appearing at a branch office of the secretary of state or other location designated by the secretary of state, or a notification by mail, telephone, electronically, by submitting a voter registration application unless the person registers to vote in a city, village, or township that prohibits the operation of motor vehicles by law or ordinance, or by any other means prescribed by the secretary of state.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(1).
23

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.24 Page 24 of 75
secretary of state may immediately suspend or revoke his or her license.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(3). In addition, “[a] person who fails to report a change of his or her residence address is responsible for a civil infraction.” Id.
43. If an individual “knowingly report[s] a change of address to the secretary of state for himself or herself that is not his or her residence address,” that individual is subject to a misdemeanor charge, “punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of $1,000.00, or both.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(4). In addition, “the secretary of state may suspend the person’s operator’s or chauffeur’s license for 6 months.” Id.18 III. The Legislative History of Rogers’ Law Evidences Its Discriminatory
Intent 44. The legislative history of Rogers’ Law demonstrates that the legislators who sponsored, promoted, and enacted the law were well-aware that the intent of the legislation was to discourage and make it more difficult for young people, particularly college students, to vote, and especially in their college communities. 45. During the floor debate, Democratic State Representative Lynne Martinez described “young people” as “the targets of the bill.” Statement of Rep. Lynne Martinez, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 7 (emphasis
18 In the event of a second misdemeanor charge, “the secretary of state shall revoke the person’s operator’s or chauffeur’s license.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(5).
24

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.25 Page 25 of 75
added). She asserted that Rogers’ Law was introduced “to restrict access to the ballot of certain people who may wish to vote for [a Republican legislator’s] opponent,” and stated, “I think that trying to restrict [college students’] access to the ballot, where they live a good percentage of their lives while they’re in college, is absolutely wrong.” Id.
46. Democratic State Representative Mark Schauer similarly stated on the floor that “the real motive” of the law is to “mak[e] it more difficult for young people to vote in their college communities.” Statement of Rep. Mark Schauer, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 16.
47. Similarly, State Representative David Woodward described Rogers’ Law as “a way to cripple the ability for young people to take an active role in a process that is critical to our society, critical to our democracy, and critical to the livelihood of our state.” Statement of Rep. David Woodward, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 18-19.
48. Representative Elizabeth Brater stated on the floor, that Rogers’ Law would “limit the rights of our youngest citizens who have the right to vote to vote” and would “creat[e] in them the appearance that you do not wish them to participate in a democratic process.” Statement of Rep. Liz Brater, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 23.
25

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.26 Page 26 of 75
49. Put another way, as State Representative A.T. Frank stated, “[w]e now put up another barrier to stop [young voters] from their coming into the process.” Statement of Rep. A.T. Frank, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 25.
50. This particular brand of criticism was so wide-spread that even the analysis of Rogers’ Law prepared by the House Legislative Analysis Section at the time the bill was under consideration by the Michigan House (the “Legislative Analysis”) stated that “some people suspect this is the intent of the bill, to dilute student voting.” Michigan House Legislative Analysis of New Voter Registration Requirement, Senate Bill 306, Driver License/Voter Address, House Legislative Analysis Section 3 (May 26, 1999) (emphasis added).19
51. The legislative history of Rogers’ Law also demonstrates that legislators were well-aware of the disproportionate impact that Rogers’ Law would have on young voters, especially college students, and that it would lead to significant burdens on their right to vote, and even disenfranchisement.
19 Bill analyses are nonpartisan summaries of pending legislation prepared after a committee reports a bill to the full House. The House Legislative Analysis is prepared by the nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency for use by House members in their deliberations, and includes “a description of the problem being addressed, arguments for and against the bill, and positions of interested organizations.” House Fiscal Agency, About Us, https://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/About.asp (last accessed Aug. 29, 2018).
26

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.27 Page 27 of 75
52. On June 2, 1999, during debate on the bill on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, Democratic State Representative Laura Baird stated that “we’re back to the issue of voters’ rights and whether or not the State of Michigan is going to deny the right of people who aren’t living at their residence to vote,” “primarily students.” Statement of Rep. Laura Baird, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 2.
53. Democratic State Representative Deborah Cherry stated that if Rogers’ Law had been the law when she was in college, it “would have made voting difficult for me when I was a student and for many of you who voted in the place where you went to college.” Statement of Rep. Deborah Cherry, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 6.
54. Democratic State Representative Julie Dennis recognized that Rogers’ Law would result in “driv[ing] young [people] away from the polls.” Statement of Rep. Julie Dennis, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 26.
55. Democratic State Representative Jack Minore also recognized that college students “would find it difficult to vote” under Rogers’ Law, which “would be restrictive of their voting rights.” Statement of Rep. Jack Minore, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 11-12.
27

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.28 Page 28 of 75
56. Democratic State Representative Paul Gieleghem characterized Rogers’ Law as “creat[ing] too many hoops” for college student voting. Statement of Rep. Paul Gieleghem, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 13.
57. Democratic Representative Vera Rison asked: “why we are saying to our children we want you when you leave home to change your address,” and “then when you come back home, you can’t vote in an election because of the change of address.” Statement of Rep. Vera Rison, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 33.
58. Democratic State Senator Dianne Byrum issued a floor statement protesting the passage of Rogers’ Law, after an amendment to exempt college students from its matching address requirement failed. She emphasized that “[w]e should be about encouraging people to participate in one of the most basic rights— voting”; “[w]e should not be discouraging that participation.” Statement of Sen. Byrum, J. OF THE SENATE No. 26 at 371 (Mar. 23, 1999), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tfi3vaw0qxgn2natks1lzml2))/documents/19992000/Journal/Senate/pdf/1999-SJ-03-23-026.pdf (emphasis added).
59. In contrast, there were multiple statements by legislators who sponsored or supported the bill that made clear that, not only were they unconcerned about the negative impact it would have on the voting rights of
28

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.29 Page 29 of 75
students, but that, in their view, students should not vote in the communities in which they attend school.
60. Senator Rogers himself revealed that his motives for passing the legislation centered around student voters, stating that it is a “slap in the face to democracy” to permit students to “be registered in one place and live in another.” Statement of Sen. Rogers, Mich. Senate, Mar. 18, 1999 Tr. at 9. According to Rogers, “students” should “do it right,” and “vote responsibly,” i.e. not vote in their college campus communities. Id. at 10-11. Instead, they should be permitted to “register at the campus, if they feel that that’s their home” only if they “have their driver’s license moved there.” Id.
61. Similarly, Republican Representative Rick Johnson, who voted for Rogers’ Law, stated that “you should vote in one place and make that decision,” whether they vote “in their university town or back home.” Statement of Rep. Johnson, Mich. House of Rep., June 3, 1999 Tr. at 29-30. In making these misleading statements suggesting that students were prone to commit voter fraud by registering and/or voting in more than one place, neither Senator Rogers nor Representative Johnson referenced any evidence that any such fraud actually occurred.
62. The Legislative Analysis also informed members of the Michigan Legislature of concerns that young voters, particularly college students, would be
29

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.30 Page 30 of 75
disproportionately impacted. Under arguments against the bill, the Legislative Analysis identified “[c]ollege students,” as “perhaps the most obvious example” of voters who are likely to have “what might be considered multiple residences and allegiances,” and thus be directly impacted by Rogers’ Law. SB 306 House Legislative Analysis at 3, Driver License/Voter Address, House Legislative Analysis Section (May 26, 1999). It also stated that, “[a] student who leaves the home of parents to spend nine months per year for four or five (or more) years at school might want to leave the address on his or her driver license the same but register to vote and participate in politics where they are in school.” Id. “Such a student might move numerous times during the school years and changing a driver license address each time would be a nuisance.” Id. Thus, “[c]ritics of the bill are concerned that the legislation will discourage voting and decrease participation, particularly among students in college towns.” Id.
63. Elections officials and non-profit organizations also protested that Rogers’ Law was meant to make it harder for young voters, particularly college students, who are more likely to support Democratic Party candidates, to vote.
64. The non-partisan League of Women Voters of Michigan similarly concluded that “1999, PA 118 . . . was passed by the Michigan Legislature to target students by requiring the resident address on the driver’s license to be the same as the resident address.” Update: Michigan’s Voting Laws, LEAGUE OF
30

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.31 Page 31 of 75

WOMEN

VOTERS

OF

MICHIGAN

(July

30,

2014),

http://lwvmi.org/issues/documents/VotingRtsupdate8-14.pdf (emphasis added).

65. Young voters themselves also believed that Rogers’ Law was

designed to target student voters. For example, contemporaneously with its

passage, University of Michigan student Abe Raffi stated, “[t]his law attempts to

silently drag students out of the democratic process.” Six University Student

Assemblies File Suit to Prevent Implementation of New Law,” American Civil

Liberties Union (February 24, 2000), http://www.aclumich.org/article/six-

university-student-assemblies-file-suit-prevent-implementation-new-law (emphasis

added).

IV. Rogers Had an Clear Incentive to Suppress the Influence of Young Voters
66. In addition to the legislative history and contemporary public reaction

discussed above, Rogers’ own electoral circumstances, both preceding and

immediately after passage of the law, further evidence that the intent of the law

was to discourage young, college students from voting, and that the law

accomplished precisely that.

67. On March 28, 1999, then-Representative Debbie Stabenow announced

she would run for U.S. Senate and, therefore, would not seek reelection to a third

term as the U.S. Representative from Michigan’s Eighth Congressional District

(“CD-8”). By that time, Rogers had already organized his principal campaign

31

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.32 Page 32 of 75
committee, which filed with the Federal Election Commission on March 19, 1999. Democrat Dianne Byrum formally announced her candidacy on April 12, 1999. CD-8 included only part of Rogers’ State Senate District, but it encompassed all of Byrum’s State Senate District, including the campus of Michigan State University.
68. CD-8 was a crucial swing district in the 2000 House elections. Early expectations were that the race would be tight, and early polling confirmed these expectations.20 The student vote in East Lansing, however, was known to be a heavily Democratic constituency in CD-8. In the seven precincts on the Michigan State University campus, Byrum won more than 63% of the vote in her 1998 race for State Senate. And Democrat Debbie Stabenow received more than 76% of the vote of those precincts in her 1998 contest for CD-8, a race that she won with only 57% of the vote of the district as a whole.
69. Rogers clearly stood to benefit electorally from the passage of Rogers’ Law. And, as illustrated by the legislative history discussed above, Rogers was well-aware of concerns about the disproportionate impact that Rogers’ Law would have on college students and that it would suppress the influence of young, college-student voters, particularly Michigan State University students in the CD-8
20 See Competitive House Race Chart, COOK POLITICAL REPORT 53 (June 14, 1999) (noting CD-8 had a 0.3% Democratic lean in the Cook Presidential Vote Index and rating the 2000 race as a toss-up); A Hardware Democrat, and a Republican of Steel, NATIONAL JOURNAL’S CONGRESS DAILY (Sept. 27, 1999) (reporting a 39%-34% lead for Byrum in a Sept. 12¬–14, 1999 poll).
32

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.33 Page 33 of 75
race. Public criticism was pointed: in addition to the public concerns discussed above, the press reported that “[t]wo college groups - the College Democrats of Michigan and the Michigan State University Democrats - are saying the author of the legislation, state Sen. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, is purposely trying to make it difficult for students to vote.” THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATE & LOCAL WIRE (Apr. 19, 1999).
70. And, as discussed below, the impact of Rogers’ Law was just as anticipated. V. Rogers’ Law Created Massive Confusion and Burdens for Student
Voters, Prompting Students to Challenge the Law in Court 71. In the immediate aftermath of the passage of Rogers’ Law, there was widespread confusion and concern regarding the abridgment of the right to vote. Students and election officials were unaware of how to comply with the requirements, leading to students being denied the right to vote by elections officials. 72. In the first election in which Rogers’ Law was implemented, “many students were unaware of the law until they were turned away from the East Lansing polls on Election Day.” Fix the System, THE STATE NEWS (Nov. 16, 2000), http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2000/11/Fix_the_system. Indeed, “[t]he law complicated the process, especially for students who were voting for the first time and were unfamiliar with the process.” Id.
33

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.34 Page 34 of 75
73. Further, when Rogers’ Law was first implemented, “rumors [were] spread that by registering in East Lansing [or another college town] instead of at home, students risked being kicked off their parent’s health insurance plans and having their credit rating adversely effected,” which “kept more students away from the polls in East Lansing.” Philip Moon, supra. These rumors were false, but they were pervasive and effective in suppressing the student vote, and, as will be discussed, they have persisted.
74. Indeed, analysis of precinct-level data from the Secretary’s office from 1998 to 2014 reveal a large initial impact on registration and voting in college areas, and that impact has persisted over time. In particular, Michigan’s major college towns experienced a decrease in turnout relative to their surrounding counties in the two elections immediately after the reform, and in five out of six counties examined, this increased turnout gap has persisted to this day.
75. These immediate impacts of Rogers’ Law prompted four Michigan students and representatives from six university student assemblies to file a lawsuit challenging the law, alleging, inter alia, that “[t]he law will discourage voter registration and political activity among college students.” See Complaint at 2, Cent. Mich. Univ. Student Gov’t Ass’n v. Miller, No. 00-10070 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2000) (“CMUSGA v. Miller Compl.”). According to the lawsuit, in which the students were represented by the local Michigan affiliate of the American Civil
34

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.35 Page 35 of 75
Liberties Union, Rogers’ Law “will place serious burdens on the fundamental right
to vote, particularly for college students, who, because of their frequent moves
within the college community generally maintain a fixed driver’s license address as
their family home, but whose residence in the college community entitles them to
maintain their voting registration there.” Id.21
76. The Court, however, rejected plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that they
were not likely to succeed on the merits and denying plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction. Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for
Change of Venue and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Cent.
Mich. Univ. Student Gov’t Ass’n v. Miller, No. 00-10070 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17,
2000).
77. In so finding, the Court emphasized that, the plaintiffs, who filed suit
shortly after the law’s enactment and obtained a decision before Rogers’ Law had
been in place for any major election, “offered only conjecture in support of their
21 The plaintiffs brought five causes of action, claiming that Rogers’ Law is: (1) preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”); (2) imposes on Michigan citizens an impermissible burden on the fundamental right to vote and deprives them of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (3) invidiously discriminates between long-term residents of Michigan and those who have more recently become residents, impermissibly burdens the right to travel, and deprives Michigan citizens of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) violates Article 4, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution by amending the Michigan Election Law by reference; and (5) violates Article 4, § 24 of the Michigan Constitution in that its title does not express its evident object of amending the Michigan Election Law. CMUSG v. Miller Comp. at 14-18.
35

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.36 Page 36 of 75
claim that the discouragement of college student voting motivated [Rogers’ Law],” id. at 25, and that, “the only real consequence of the new law is that students will be forced to have their college address on their driver’s licenses.” Id. at 7.
78. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that “[i]t is understandable that confusion on the part of students might hamper voter registration efforts,” id. at 8, and stated that “Plaintiffs’ most compelling argument of harm is that college students are now confused and apprehensive about voting,” id. at 9. Nonetheless, the Court dismissed those compelling concerns based on assurances from Christopher M. Thomas, then Michigan’s Director of Elections, that a “massive” “educational effort is underway,” including a “public information campaign to inform college students about the implementation of” the law and plans to “place advertisements in 50 college newspapers.” Id. at 8. Thus, the Court stated, “[h]opefully, the planned educational effort will alleviate [students’] fears and encourage participation.” Id. at 29.
79. Upon information and belief, no “massive” public education campaign, however, actually materialized, and whatever public education has been conducted has plainly not alleviated the widespread and ongoing confusion that Rogers’ Law has injected between young people and their right to vote.
80. To the contrary, and as discussed further below, misleading and flatout wrong information has been widely disseminated from multiple authoritative
36

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.37 Page 37 of 75
and trusted sources, including the Defendant Secretary, local election officials, universities, and the media.
81. Over time, that confusion and misinformation, in combination with other aspects of Michigan’s particularly restrictive voting regime, including specifically the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, has had the pronounced effect of unduly burdening the right to vote of young voters, and, in many cases, as evidenced in particular by marked and increasing disparities in younger voter turnout—particularly in college communities—has effectively disenfranchised them altogether.
82. While the evidence of this impact may have been unclear (or “speculative”) in 2000, it has since become undeniable. VI. After Implementation of Rogers’ Law, Rogers Won the CD-8 Race by a
Razor-Thin Margin in the 2000 Election, When Hundreds of Michigan State University Students were Turned Away at the Polls 83. In the aftermath of the students’ failed legal challenge against Rogers’ Law, Rogers went on to win the CD-8 race by a razor-thin margin in the November 2000 election. 84. In the final official tally, Rogers became a U.S. Congressman by a margin of only 111 votes (0.0373% of the 297,609 votes cast). 85. Voters at the seven precincts on the Michigan State campus overwhelmingly voted for Byrum over Rogers, 3,063 to 948, or 76% to 24%.
37

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.38 Page 38 of 75

86. But turnout at the precincts on the Michigan State campus was

depressed and student voters in particular had difficulty navigating the elections

process to successfully cast ballots.

87. “This election more than any other was rife with confusion,” said East

Lansing City Manager Ted Staton. Jamie Gumbrecht, Task Force Looks to Help

Voters,

STATE

NEWS

(Apr.

3,

2001),

https://statenews.com/article/2001/04/task_force_looks_to_help_voters.

88. “[Rogers’ Law] complicated the process, especially for students who

were voting for the first time and were unfamiliar with the process.” See Fix the

System,

THE

STATE

NEWS

(Nov.

16,

2000),

http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2000/11/Fix_the_system).

89. It was reported that Rogers’ electoral victory in the 2000

congressional election, “was likely influenced by . . . [a] law requiring voters to

vote where their driver’s license says they live” as “[t]his prevented many

Michigan State University students, who tend to be Democratic, from voting from

their campus addresses, as they have in the past.” Jack Lessenberry, Its Strictly the

Party Line in Michigan Primary, THE MICHIGAN BLADE (Aug. 4, 2002),

http://www.toledoblade.com/JackLessenberry/2002/08/04/It-s-strictly-the-party-

line-in-Michigan-primary.html.

38

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.39 Page 39 of 75
90. In response to the 2000 election, a bipartisan 18-member Michigan Task Force on Voting Reform received testimony at six hearings across the state and made a public report in September 2001. Indeed, 20 Michigan State University students testified before the Task Force on Voting Reform that they were denied the opportunity to vote. Id.
91. The problems were so egregious that Senator Byrum initially called for a revote in the campus precincts. As she later said, Rogers’ Law “was purely aimed at Michigan State University and trying to shut down the student vote . . . because those would obviously advantage me. That was my Senate District. I was better known; I worked the campus aggressively.” Marisa Schultz, The Rise of Mike Rogers, DETROIT NEWS (July 4, 2013). Senator Byrum also said: “Students had difficulty voting. I think they would have had an impact on the election. We’ll never know.” Gumbrecht, Task Force, supra.
92. The impact Rogers’ Law had on student voting is further shown by the precipitous drop in registration in Michigan’s largest college towns immediately following its implementation.
93. Less than two years after its enactment, the Detroit Free Press reported that, as a “result” of Rogers’ Law, “fewer students are registering to vote in Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Kalamazoo and Mt. Pleasant, home to some of Michigan’s largest universities.” Jamie Gumbrecht, New Law Affects College
39

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40 Page 40 of 75
Voters; Registration Change May Lower Numbers, DETROIT FREE PRESS (Oct. 5, 2002).
94. From 2000 to 2002, “registered voter numbers have dropped from 29,463 to 26,242 in East Lansing and 91,847 to 84,512 in Ann Arbor.” Id. This was a total drop in voter registration of 13.6% in Ann Arbor, and 11% in East Lansing. Philip Moon, supra. See also Gumbrecht, supra (“[S]ome students. . . offer a cold stare to registration drive workers” due to Rogers’ Law). VII. Legislative Efforts to Repeal Rogers’ Law, Though Unsuccessful,
Detailed the Law’s Negative Impact on Young Voters 95. After the detrimental impact on young voters resulting from implementation of Rogers’ Law, Democratic members of the Michigan Legislature repeatedly attempted to account for, and address, its negative consequences. Though each of these efforts failed, the legislative history surrounding them further highlight the discriminatory impact and intent of Rogers’ Law. 96. For example, Representative Woodward, who voted against Rogers’ Law, introduced an amendment in 2001 to Senate Bill 173, a bill to eliminate straight-ticket voting, which would have required the Secretary to “study and report back to the legislature . . . the deleterious effects on students and young voters of Public Act 118 of 1999.” Mich. H. Journal, 91st Leg., Reg. Sess., 2594 (Dec. 6, 2001). The amendment failed on a strict party-line vote of 46 Democrats in favor and 55 Republicans against.
40

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.41 Page 41 of 75
97. In 2004, State Senator Brater proposed a four-bill package to repeal Rogers’ Law. That failed on another strict party-line vote of 16 Democrats in favor of passage and 22 Republicans against. Mich. Sen. Journal, 92nd Leg., Reg. Sess., 1885, 1894 (Sept. 15, 2004).
98. In 2007, State Representative Rebekah Warren introduced House Bill 4447, which would have provided that “an individual may change the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffeur’s license issued pursuant to the Michigan vehicle code . . . or official state personal identification card. . . , without changing his or her address for purposes of the qualified voter file or may change his or her address on the qualified voter file without changing the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffeur’s license issued under the Michigan Vehicle Code . . . or official state personal identification card . . . .”
99. The Michigan House Legislative Analysis of House Bill 4447 prepared by non-partisan legislative staff described “the apparent problem” that the matching-address requirement of Rogers’ Law “sometimes prevents lawfully registered voters from casting their ballots.” Michigan House Fiscal Agency, Legislative Analysis of Bill to Allow Different Addresses For Driver’s License and Voting, House Bills 4447 & 4448 at 1 (Jan. 14, 2008). Thus, “[i]n order to ensure that all registered voters find a lawful path to vote in every election, bills have been introduced to permit a resident address on a driver license (or personal
41

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.42 Page 42 of 75
identification card) that is different than the voter registration address (on the Qualified Voter File).” Id.
100. The Legislative Analysis also highlighted testimony offered by the Michigan Election Reform Alliance (“MERA”) based on its members’ research and experience, describing three ways in which Rogers’ Law deterred and disenfranchised eligible voters. MERA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization and is recognized as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charity by the Internal Revenue Service. Its active members include election administrators and election observers.
101. First, MERA cited “many examples of error in local clerks’ offices, as voters seek to align their new driver’s license addresses with changes in the Qualified Voter File.” Id. In fact, MERA had recorded, “in one voting precinct alone, more than 30 cases where voters applied to vote from an address not listed in the precinct poll-book, some of which were the result of administrative error in the office of the city clerk when new changes of address were never, or erroneously, recorded.” Id.
102. Second, MERA described confusion and fears, whether accurate or not, that “voters in college towns who do successfully change the addresses on their driver’s licenses and on the Qualified Voter File sometimes risk losing their family health care coverage, since they no longer live ‘at home.’” Id.
42

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.43 Page 43 of 75
103. And, finally, “voters in college towns who do not change their driver’s license to reflect their changes of address are prevented from voting in elections back home by casting an absentee ballot, since Michigan law requires a first-time absent[ee] ballot voter to make application for the absent[ee] voter ballot in person, at the office of the hometown office clerk[, and f]or many university students there is little time . . . to travel home and apply.” Id.
104. When HB 4447 was considered before the Committee on Ethics and Elections in 2008, there was a substantial amount of testimony regarding the negative impact that Rogers’ Law had by that time clearly had on student voting and political participation by Michigan’s youngest voters.
105. For example, Philip Shepard, a Professor Emeritus at Michigan State University and a member of MERA, testified in support of House Bill 4447, concluding that “[t]he current law creates an opportunity for administrative error that can easily lead to a voter being improperly disenfranchised.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 2 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Philip Shepard, Michigan Election Reform Alliance).
106. Professor Shepard described errors he personally observed as an Election Challenger in East Lansing in 2006, in which voters had changed either
43

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.44 Page 44 of 75
their voter registration or driver’s license address and yet the state had failed to properly record the change, leading to confusion at the polls. Id.
107. Mr. Shepard noted these errors were “occasioned solely by the requirement in current law that the driver address match the voter address,” and could “easily lead to a voter being improperly denied the right to vote,” with a “much greater” effect expected on “voters who move frequently.” Id.
108. Nancy Bedell, a former Kent County Deputy Clerk and MERA member, noted she “spent more than half of [her] time educating people on the . . . intricacies of election law.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 1 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Nancy Bedell, Michigan Election Reform Alliance).
109. In Bedell’s experience, “Rogers’ Law . . . seems to discourage voting especially for young people who change residences often” and “[y]oung people told me they had avoided registering on campus when they learned they had to change their driver’s license address.” Id.
110. Bedell listed the barriers for college students to vote on campus, including that first-time voters who register by mail are not able to cast absentee ballots nor travel to their parents’ address to vote, and students wish to maintain
44

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.45 Page 45 of 75
their parents’ address because they are covered by their parents’ health or car insurance decline to register on campus. Id.
111. Although some members of the Michigan Legislature were openly hostile to the idea of students voting in their college communities, see Barton, supra (describing how, in 2007, “State Rep. Tom Pearce (R-Kent County) asked . . . students about the possibility of student voters altering local politics in a district where they will likely only live for a few years”), House Bill 4447 nevertheless passed the Michigan House on July 25, 2007, with 58 votes in favor and 50 against. All Democratic Representatives supported the bill and all but one Republican Representatives opposed it. Mich. H. Journal, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1118 (July 25, 2007).
112. From there, House Bill 4447 was received in the Senate and was referred to the Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee, where it languished.
113. In 2009, Representative Warren again introduced legislation, House Bill 4373, to repeal Rogers’ Law. Similar appeals by non-partisan nonprofit organizations concerning the harms resulting from Rogers’ Law were submitted to the Legislature for its consideration.
114. The Director of Advocacy and Education at Ann Arbor’s Center for Independent Living submitted a written statement regarding the effects Rogers’
45

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.46 Page 46 of 75
Law has had on those with transient living conditions, particularly “students in Universities from 2-8 years.” The organization described how Rogers’ Law “has been a huge barrier for people who have multiple or no address(es) to be more civically engaged.” Letter from Carolyn L. Grawi, Director of Advocacy and Education, to Michigan House of Representatives (Dec. 1, 2009) (emphasis in original). The 2009 repeal effort, however, failed.
115. In 2012, Warren, by then a State Senator, attempted to introduce another repeal of Rogers’ Law through an amendment to Senate Bill 823, a bill that sought to impose additional election restrictions on the procedure governing statewide ballot initiatives, among other new requirements. Despite unanimous Democratic support, the amendment failed, with 25 out of 26 Republican State Senators voting against it.
116. In 2017, State Senators Warren, Steve Bieda, and Curtis Hertel introduced Senate Bill 506, a third piece of legislation to repeal Rogers’ Law.22
22 Like House Bill 4447 introduced by then-Representative Warren in 2007, Senate Bill 506 would have provided that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, an individual may change the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffer’s license issued under the Michigan vehicle code . . . or official state personal identification card . . . , without changing his or her address for purposes of the qualified voter file or may change his or her address on the qualified voter file without changing the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffeur’s license issued under the Michigan Vehicle Code . . . or official state personal identification card . . . .”
46

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.47 Page 47 of 75
However, like earlier attempts, this one also failed, never making it out of committee.
117. Many Republican Michigan legislators voiced hostility to the repeal effort, with Republican State Senator Dave Robertson, who previously voted against Senator Warren’s 2012 amendment, arguing that, “[t]he logic behind [Rogers’ Law] is very clear: [v]oters should have only one legal address for voting purposes.” Patricia Lesko, Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Vote? The Michigan GOP, HUFFINGTON POST (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricialesko/michigan-voting-legislation_b_1276999.html. The requirement that voters may only claim one residence for voting purposes, however, exists independent of Rogers’ Law and carries with it the threat of imprisonment and hefty fines. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.932a(d) (making it a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to four years or a fine of up to $2,000, or both, to, inter alia, “offer to vote or attempt to vote in a voting precinct in which the elector does not reside” or “offer to vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election either in the same or in another voting precinct”).
118. Senate Bill 506 was referred to the Senate Elections and Government Reform Committee on July 12, 2017. The legislative session ended with no further action being taken.
47

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.48 Page 48 of 75
VIII. Confusion Regarding Rogers’ Law Continues Unabated 119. It is now clear that, in the years since Rogers’ Law was enacted, and
directly as a result of that law, Michigan’s young voters, and particularly, college students, have faced significant obstacles—including widespread confusion—to registering and voting in Michigan’s elections. See Justin Jackson, Did You Forget Something, FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY TORCH (Sept. 17, 2008), https://www.fsutorch.com/archives/archive/2008_09_17_opinions.html (“[T]hanks to Public Act 118 of 1999 (also known as ‘Rogers Law’), registering away from home can lead to a lot of confusion for many student voters.”) (emphasis added); ACLU of Michigan Fall Newsletter (Fall 2008), http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2008fallnewsletter.pdf (“In past elections, the law has created much confusion for students across the state— including Michigan State University students in Mike Rogers’ district.”) (emphasis added); Philip Moon, supra (“Registering in East Lansing meant that [students] would have to change their permanent address on their driver’s license, a hurdle of time and confusion that would help disenfranchise some.”) (emphasis added).
120. One of the common misconceptions stemming from Rogers’ Law that has effectively suppressed student registration and voting is the belief, held by many Michigan college student voters, that if they change their driver’s license
48

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.49 Page 49 of 75
address, they risk losing their healthcare, which they often maintain through their parents at their parents’ home addresses See Barton, supra.
121. The right to vote under Michigan law is plainly not linked to the address at which a person’s health insurance is maintained, and if the Legislature were to pass such a law—essentially requiring its young people in many cases to choose between ensuring that they are able to afford medical care or exercising the right to vote—such a law would clearly be unconstitutional.
122. Yet, through Rogers’ Law, the Legislature has effectively promoted the belief among young voters that they must make precisely such a choice. It is thus unsurprising that, since the enactment of Rogers’ Law young voter registration and participation has fallen precipitously to among the lowest rates in the country.
123. Confusion stemming from such rumors has continued unabated to the present day, and incorrect or highly misleading statements by government and public university officials about Rogers’ Law have exacerbated voter confusion.
124. For example, Michigan State University’s official 2008 YouVote Guide stated that “[s]tate law requires that the driver’s license record address match the one on your voter registration card in order to cast your ballot.” It continued, in responding to the question that “My Roommate Told me That my Insurance Rates Could Change if I Make East Lansing my Voting Address. Is this
49

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.50 Page 50 of 75
true?,” that students are advised to “contact your insurance carrier prior to changing your address with the Secretary of State or City Clerk.”
125. That same year, the Michigan Student Assembly (of the University of Michigan) described Rogers’ Law as “mandat[ing] that students vote in the district that is on their driver’s license [which] prevents many students from voting on campus.” Michigan Student Assembly, Regents’ Report (Feb. 2008), http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/02-08/2008-2-II-8.pdf (emphasis added). The student government continued: “[a]nd so students cannot vote in the district that they live in and who’s [sic] law they are subject to for more than 8 months of the year.” Id.
126. To date, Michigan election officials continue to foster misinformation about Rogers’ Law.
127. For example, the 2016 Davison Township’s official Voting Tips for College Students, which as of the date of this filing still appears on the township’s website, incorrectly states:
There are several things to consider in making your decision regarding your principal residence:
• Residency requirements for various colleges and universities follow rules set down by those institutions so be aware that your residence can determine how much tuition you will pay.
• Health insurance may require that you reside with your parents if you are covered under their policy.
• Your residence may also determine automobile insurance rates.
50

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.51 Page 51 of 75
Voting Tips for College Students, Davison Township (2016), http://www.davisontwp-mi.org/assets/voting_tips_college_students_2016.pdf (emphasis added).
128. The Richfield Township Voting Tips for College Students does the same. http://www.richfieldtwp.org/Portals/1094/docs/VOTING%20TIPS%20FOR%20C OLLEGE%20STUDENTS.pdf (last accessed Aug. 7, 2018) (listing the above false considerations for students’ decisions regarding principal residence and warning students that they must “identify your ‘principal residence’ in the state”).
129. These township voting tips stand in contrast to the information published by the Undergraduate Student Government of Michigan Technological University, which accurately describes the “lie[s] that prevent[] students from voting,” including that changing your driver’s license address to reflect your college address will impact “your dependency status, financial aid, or any insurance policy.” Mich. Technological Univ. Undergraduate Student Government, Voter Registration Frequently Asked Questions, http://usg.mtu.edu/usg/votefaq (last accessed Aug. 7, 2018).
130. Upon information and belief, Defendants have taken no action to counteract this rampant misinformation and ensure that student voters are property informed of their right to vote in the communities in which they reside.
51

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.52 Page 52 of 75
131. To the contrary, Defendant Secretary has been among those actively spreading false information tied to Rogers’ Law, further confusing student voters as to their voting rights.
132. Most recently, in a March 2018 presentation to a group of students at Kappa Omega Alpha at Michigan State University, the Defendant Secretary told students living on or near the university that their school address is not really their home, and therefore, it would not be “fair” for students to register to vote at their campus address.
133. She went on to say that if students do choose to register to vote using their campus address, they must first obtain a completely new driver’s license or state identification listing that campus address.
134. Though neither of those statements comport with Michigan law, they comport entirely with the misleading and disenfranchising intent and resulting impact of Rogers’ Law.
135. On April 20, 2018, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to the Secretary, requesting that she confirm the correct understanding of Michigan law and institute a plan to resolve the widespread confusion around student voting and student voter registration in Michigan. The Secretary did not respond to counsel’s request.
52

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.53 Page 53 of 75
136. Confusion about exactly what Rogers’ Law requires and how it interacts with the right to vote is so wide-spread that the press also repeatedly and regularly furthers the confusion, making it all the more likely that students are in fact choosing not to register because of the existence of the law.
137. Last year, for example, the Huffington Post reported: “if your license has your Detroit address, but you attend Michigan State University, you’re still required by law to vote in Detroit,” and noted “[s]ince the primary is on a Tuesday, it’s safe to say most students won’t be home to vote.” Susan Demas, Could Michigan’s Restrictive Student Voter Law Hurt Bernie Sanders, HUFFINGTON POST (Feb. 16, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-j-demas/could-michigansrestrictive-student-voter-law-hurt-bernie-sanders_b_9237796.html.
138. The article’s misstatement of Rogers’ Law’s requirements and operation is not the only reflection of widespread confusion regarding the law, as the article itself reports that “many MSU students in the district discovered they couldn’t vote on campus” due to what was likely election officials’ misapplication of Rogers’ Law. Id. IX. Rogers’ Law Continues to Burden and Abridge the Right to Vote of
Young People, Especially College Students 139. The cloud of confusion resulting from Rogers’ Law has led to the burdening and even outright denial of college students’ right to vote over the last 18 years and will continue to do so, unless the requirement is enjoined. See Susan
53

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.54 Page 54 of 75
Demas, supra (“[M]any MSU students in the district discovered they couldn’t vote on campus.”); Philip Moon, supra (“And the group [Mike Rogers] successfully disenfranchised was the young voters at Michigan State University, which is located in his district, and every other residential college and university in Michigan.”); see also Patricia Lesko, supra (“[Rogers’ Law] made it harder for college students to vote.”) (emphasis added); Gumbrecht, supra (“[S]ome students. . . offer a cold stare to registration drive workers” due to Rogers’ Law); id. (One student voter stated that “[i]t’s just a messed-up bureaucracy,” and “I realize now why so many people don’t [vote]”).
140. As a result of Rogers’ Law, there have been instances of college students being turned away from the polls as recently as in the 2016 election simply because the address on their driver’s license did not match their voter registration address. See Zach Robertson, Slices of life from East Lansing elections, SPARTAN NEWSROOM (Nov. 8, 2016), http://news.jrn.msu.edu/2016/11/slices-oflife-from-east-lansing-elections/ (describing attempt by election official to prohibit a Michigan State University student from voting in East Lansing “because [her] driver’s license ha[d her] home town as [her] address on it”); see also Fix the System, supra (stating that in the first election in which Rogers’ Law was implemented, “many students were unaware of the law until they were turned away from the East Lansing polls on Election Day”) (emphasis added).
54

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.55 Page 55 of 75
141. Additionally, college students have been disenfranchised by administrative error stemming from Rogers’ Law. As discussed above, a Michigan State University Professor testified to the Michigan Legislature that “[t]he current law creates an opportunity for administrative error that can easily lead to a voter being improperly disenfranchised.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 2 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Philip Shepard, Michigan Election Reform Alliance).
142. Confusion regarding Rogers’ Law has deterred some students from registering to vote at all or from registering to vote in their college town. As discussed above, a Deputy Clerk testified that based on her experience, “Rogers’ Law … seems to discourage voting especially for young people who change residences often,” as “they had avoided registering on campus when they learned they had to change their driver’s license address.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 1 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Nancy Bedell, Michigan Election Reform Alliance) (emphasis added). In particular, she “[p]oint[ed] to the complexity of [Rogers’ Law],” which, in the end, “discourage[s] voting” and results in lower voter turnout among students. Id.
55

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.56 Page 56 of 75
143. Further, the significant civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance with the address reporting requirements associated with Rogers’ Law also impose significant risk of intimidating and deterring college students from registering and/or voting at their campus address when confronted with uncertain or conflicting information about the law’s requirements. Indeed, failure to report an address change or respond to a notice from the secretary could result in immediate suspension or revocation of one’s driver license. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(3). And an individual who “knowingly report[s] a change of address to the secretary of state for himself or herself that is not his or her residence address” is a misdemeanor, “punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of $1,000.00, or both.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(4). These stiff penalties relate to behavior—reporting address changes and responding to notices—that have nothing to do with eligibility for voting, but that could very well have a chilling effect leading to disenfranchisement, particularly given the widespread confusion over what is the appropriate residence address to list.
144. Rogers’ Law is particularly devastating to young voters because of unique characteristics that make them especially vulnerable to disenfranchisement as a result of restrictive or confusing elections laws. For example, young voters face steeper information costs and are less likely to know where to vote and how Michigan’s voting process works in general. Further, because young voters are
56

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.57 Page 57 of 75
more likely to be first time voters, they are more likely to be discouraged by barriers to entry. They are also less likely to be contacted by political campaigns or other political groups that could help educate them on the relevant voting process, because they are not on the lists generated from prior vote histories. Young voters are additionally more likely to receive information from unreliable sources, such as social media, regarding voting. Finally, young voters sometimes feel that their vote is not welcome, or they let their fear of making a voting mistake outweigh the benefits of voting. See Eric Plutzer, Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood, 96 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 41, 41-56 (2002) (noting that voter turnout rates increase with age due, in part, to barriers to entry that lessen once voting becomes a habit and gains “inertia”). X. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement Interacts with Rogers’ Law to
Further Burden and Abridge Young Peoples’ Right to Vote 145. Rogers’ Law also interacts with other unnecessarily restrictive voting laws in Michigan, and particularly, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement to the marked and particular detriment of Michigan’s youngest voters. 146. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement mandates that “[a] person who registers to vote in a jurisdiction in this state by mail shall vote in person and shall provide identification if that person has not previously voted in person in this state.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2) (emphasis added).
57

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.58 Page 58 of 75
147. On its face, the current version of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement purports to be required by Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), 42 U.C.S § 15483. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2). As discussed below, this is not, in fact, the case.
148. Nevertheless, Michigan’s lawmakers affirmatively chose to put in place a strict, in-person voting requirement that in many cases imposes serious burdens on young voters, who are significantly more likely than the rest of the voting public to be first-time voters, while at the same time substantially less likely to have the information, transportation, or time to register in-person.
149. As a result, these voters will be prohibited from voting absentee, even if they maintain their family’s home address for voter registration purposes (as the Defendant Secretary apparently believes they should) and are unable to travel there to vote on Election Day.
150. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement applies not only to those who register to vote by mail, but also to those who register through a non-governmental voter registration drive or by submitting their application to university officials.23 Thus, first-time voters who register to vote by mail, or through a third-party voter registration drive—such as the type regularly conducted on campuses in order to 23 See Mich. Bureau of Elecs., Election Officials’ Manual at 8 (Jan. 2017), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/II_Voter_Registration_265983_7.pdf at 7-8 (“The absentee voting restriction applies if the mail-in voter registration application form is delivered to the clerk’s office by a third party.”).
58

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.59 Page 59 of 75
ensure that students, who are often becoming eligible to vote for the first time as a result of turning 18, are properly registered to vote—that then mails in or delivers the voters’ registration application to election officials, are prohibited under Michigan law from requesting an absentee ballot for their first election.
151. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement, moreover, expressly does not apply to registered voters who are 60 years of age or older, those who have “a disability as defined in section 103 of the persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1103,” those entitled to vote absentee “under the uniformed and overseas citizens absentee voting act, or those “entitled to vote other than in person under any other federal law.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2)(a)-(c).
152. For the many young, first-time voters who are understandably confused by the requirements and intimidating penalties associated with Rogers’ Law, and who thus believe they cannot register to vote on campus but must instead use their family home address for voter registration purposes, the First-Time/InPerson Requirement’s prohibition on absentee voting results in their complete disenfranchisement if—for a myriad of reasons beyond their control, including lack of access to reliable transportation and busy, inflexible schedules—they are unable to travel home to vote in-person on Election Day—a Tuesday in the middle of November, in the middle of the academic semester.
59

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.60 Page 60 of 75
153. Indeed, young voters in Michigan vote at very low rates—the difference between overall turnout and youth turnout is now larger in Michigan than in any other state. And young voters do not make up for their low rates of inperson voting by casting absentee ballots. Instead, as a consequence of Michigan’s restrictive voting rules, and in particular, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, absentee voting is infrequently used by young voters. XI. The State Does Not Have Any Legitimate Interest, Much Less
Compelling Interest, in Upholding Rogers’ Law or the First-Time/InPerson Requirement 154. The proponents of Rogers’ Law have asserted three justifications for the statute: (1) it implements the NVRA; (2) it reduces complexity and expense for government offices by reducing two addresses to one address; and (3) it protects against voter fraud. However, all three of these alleged justifications are pretexts, and none are sufficient to justify the burdens on the fundamental right to vote imposed by law even under a rational basis standard, much less compelling interests that are narrowly tailored to address those interests. 155. There is nothing in the NVRA that requires a voter’s driver’s license address to match her voter registration address. See NVRA, 107 Stat. 77, 79. To the contrary, the NVRA specifically allows an individual to maintain a driver’s license address different from her voter registration address. See id. at § 5(d) (“Any change of address form . . . for purposes of a State motor vehicle driver’s license
60

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.61 Page 61 of 75
shall serve as notification of change of address for voter registration . . . unless the registrant states on the form that the change of address is not for voter registration purposes.”) (emphasis added); see also Statement of Rep. Martinez, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 40 (stating that the NVRA “did not determine that the Secretary would decide that there was only one address available to a person”). Indeed, many states do not have the same requirement.
156. Further, the idea that Rogers’ Law reduces complexity and expense for government offices by reducing the driver’s license address and voter registration address to one address is simply not true. As was recognized by the Fiscal Implications of the House Legislative Analysis, drafted by nonpartisan Michigan House of Representatives staff, Rogers’ Law in fact results in an “increase[] in administrative costs due to the additional requirements imposed.” Senate Bill 306, Driver License/Voter Address, House Legislative Analysis Section (May 5, 1999) (emphasis added). Consistent with this, several local election administrators have publicly opposed Rogers’ Law, both at the time it was being considered by the Legislature, and in the years since, on several grounds, including the added administrative burden.
157. In addition, the argument that it is too administratively burdensome for elections officials to maintain two different address for one individual—an address for a driver’s license and another address for a voter’s registration form—
61

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.62 Page 62 of 75
is undercut by the fact that even under Rogers’ Law, elections administrators must still keep track of multiple addresses: (1) the driver’s license/voter registration address, which must be the same; and (2) a mailing address, which may differ.
158. Indeed, this very point was made when the Legislature was considering the law in 1999, by Representative Brater who pointed out, during the floor debate, that: “[t]he previous excuses that the Secretary of State has used - that you couldn’t get an additional field in the [Qualified Voter File] software has been shown to be false by adding the ability to add a field for mailing address. So that cannot possibly be the reason.” Statement of Rep. Brater, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 23.
159. Further, since Rogers’ Law was enacted, new technology has been developed to make it even easier to allow a voter to maintain a driver’s license address that is different from her address for voter registration purposes. See Patricia Lesko, Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Vote? The Michigan GOP, Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-lesko/michiganvoting-legislation_b_1276999.html (“[T]here’s now [new] technology to allow two addresses”).
160. Finally, preventing voter fraud does not justify Rogers’ Law, as there was no evidence that any voter fraud problem existed when the law was passed. Representative Schauer, for example, stated that Rogers’ Law “is veiled in the
62

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.63 Page 63 of 75
motive of voter fraud,” despite the fact that “there is no evidence of voter fraud. Statement of Rep. Schauer, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 15. Representative Brater also stated: “[t]here is no evidence of fraud in the State of Michigan, so that cannot be the reason” for the legislation. Statement of Rep. Brater, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 23; see also Statement of Rep. Dennis, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 26 (“[T]his isn’t about voter fraud.”); Statement of Rep. Gieleghem, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 13.
161. Nor is there any evidence that voter fraud of any kind has become a legitimate problem in Michigan since the passage of Rogers’ Law. See Mich. Bureau of Elecs. Rep. (2016) (concluding that an audit “found no evidence of pervasive voter fraud” in the state of Michigan).
162. Further, the requirement that voters may claim only one residence for voting purposes exists independent of Rogers’ Law and carries its own hefty penalties. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.932a(d) (making it a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to four years or a fine of up to $2,000, or both, to, inter alia, “offer to vote or attempt to vote in a voting precinct in which the elector does not reside” or “offer to vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election either in the same or in another voting precinct”).
63

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.64 Page 64 of 75
163. Michigan’s election laws also independently require that voters reregister to vote whenever they move to a new city or township and update their address if they move within a city or township. MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 168.506; 168.507; 168.507a; 168.507b.
164. The assertion that allowing voters to have a driver’s license address that is different from a voter registration address in the Qualified Voter File makes fraud more likely is further undercut by Rogers’ Law itself, which allows for two different addresses of an individual, a driver’s license/voter registration address and a different mailing address, as discussed above.
165. Further, as a practical matter, alerting the State to the two addresses, with which a Michigander associates for the purposes of a driver’s license and voter registration, is, in fact, more transparent and provides the state with more complete information about its citizens.
166. Similarly, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement is not in fact justified by the purported state interests that support it, including the claim that it is required to implement the NVRA, nor the later justification that it implements the Help America Voter Act (“HAVA”), nor any other state interest. See Michigan House Legislative Analysis of Motor/Voter Implementation, House Bill 5531, House Legislative Analysis Section (June 9, 1994), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1uzqsbttzhx2zx01d341eytf))/documents/1993-
64

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.65 Page 65 of 75
1994/billanalysis/House/pdf/1993-HLA-5529-A.pdf (describing that House Bill 5531, along with others, “would, in part, incorporate into state voter registration laws provisions of the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993”); see also MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2) (“A person who registered to vote in a jurisdiction in this state by mail shall vote in person and shall provide identification as required under section 303(b) of the help America vote act of 2002 [sic]. . . if that person has not previously voted in person in this state.”); Michigan Senate Journal, 2004 Reg. Sess. No. 39, Message to the Senate from Governor Granholm regarding her signing of S.B. 432 (describing the First-Time/In-Person Requirement as helping “in part to amend Michigan law to comply with federal mandates under [HAVA]”).
167. The NVRA does not, in fact, require states to mandate that voters can only vote in-person if they registered to vote by mail. See 52 U.S.C. § 20505(c).
168. Similarly, the legislative history of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement belies the purported justification that it was required by HAVA. Multiple legislators voiced concerns that, not only was the Requirement not required by HAVA, but was also not in the spirit of HAVA, and that the portion of the law that became MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2), specifically, would disproportionately and negatively impact young voters—particularly, college student voters.
65

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.66 Page 66 of 75
169. Though Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the bill that created the
current requirement into law (which contained other provisions purportedly
designed to bring Michigan into HAVA compliance not at issue here), she noted
her reservations in a message to the Senate:
Subject to limited exceptions, Senate Bill 432 would continue to require first-time voters registering to vote by mail to appear in person at the polls and present identification in order to vote, even when the identity of the voter was verified before the election. Continuing this requirement is especially burdensome for Michigan college students living away from home. Section 303 of HAVA provides mechanisms to verify the identity of first-time voters prior to an election, avoiding the requirement that a first-time voter appear in person at the polls, and instead allowing the verified voter to cast an absentee ballot. Michigan law should be amended to take advantage of these alternative verification mechanisms afforded by HAVA to encourage greater voter participation while maintaining the integrity of the election process. Making it difficult for first-time voters to cast a ballot is not consistent with the spirit of HAVA. Michigan law should encourage first-time voters to participate in the electoral process, and should not impose unnecessary obstacles.
Michigan Senate Journal, 2004 Reg. Sess. No. 39, Governor’s Remarks upon
Signing SB 432 into Law (emphasis added); see also Michigan Senate Journal,
2004 Reg. Sess. No. 33 (State Senator Jacobs noted: “[t]his bill contains critical
errors regarding first-time voters who are supposed to be allowed to register and
vote by mail” and “simply does not help people vote, which is our most precious
right, and I, therefore, urge its defeat.”).
66

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.67 Page 67 of 75
170. The Michigan Voter Registration Application provides further evidence that the alleged justification of implementing HAVA was pretext. It explicitly asserts that the federal voter registration by mail identification requirement is distinct from, and required in addition to, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement’s requirements.24
171. The Voter Registration Application therefore requires that voters who register by mail provide either a copy of the various forms of primary or secondary identification as required by HAVA Section 303(b), or their Michigan-issued driver’s license or state identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number, and that, despite having to provide this identifying information, the voter must nevertheless vote in-person in their first Michigan election, unless the voter is over 60 years old, disabled, or a UOCAVA voter. Id. This renders the in-person voting requirement of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement particularly bizarre, as it applies even if the voter has already verified his or her identification.
24 Compare MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2) (“A person who registered to vote in a jurisdiction in this state by mail shall vote in person and shall provide identification as required under section 303(b) of the help America vote act of 2002 [sic]. . . if that person has not previously voted in person in this state.”), with State of Michigan, State of Michigan Voter Registration Application (Rev. 7-15), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/MIVoter Registration_97046_7.pdf (“Are you registering to vote in Michigan for the first time? If you have never voted in Michigan and choose to submit this form by mail, you must meet two requirements: a Michigan requirement and a federal requirement, as explained below.”).
67

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.68 Page 68 of 75
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Denial or Abridgement of the Right to Vote on Account of Age in Violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. XXVI;
42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 172. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 173. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in relevant part: “[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by . . . any State on account of age.” (emphasis added). 174. The goal of the Amendment “was not merely to empower voting by our youths but was affirmatively to encourage their voting, through the elimination of unnecessary burdens and barriers, so that their vigor and idealism could be brought within rather than remain outside lawfully constituted institutions.” Worden v. Mercer Cty. Bd. of Elections, 294 A.2d 233, 243 (N.J. Sup. 1972). 175. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment thus, by its plan text and history, guarantees qualified young voters a substantive right to participate equally with other qualified voters in the electoral process. 176. Election laws, practices and procedures that have the purpose, at least in part, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of age are
68

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.69 Page 69 of 75
unconstitutional. See League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (holding interpretation of early voting statute to exclude only college campuses as early voting locations violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment).
177. Moreover, the Amendment (and its protections) has been recognized to have “particular relevance for the college youth who comprise approximately 50 per cent of all who were enfranchised by this amendment.” Walgren v. Howes, 482 F.2d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 1973) (citing 117 Cong. Rec. 5817, 5825).
178. In a Twenty-Sixth Amendment analysis, “[t]he impact of the official action—whether it ‘bears more heavily on one [age-group] than another,’ . . . may provide an important starting point.” Id. (citing Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977) (quoting Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976)). Further, “[s]ometimes a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than [age] emerges from the effect of the state action even when the governing legislation appears neutral on its face.” Id.
179. Rogers’ Law is unexplainable on grounds other than age discrimination, and it targets Michigan’s young voters to a significantly greater degree than the rest of Michigan’s voting population.
69

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.70 Page 70 of 75
180. Further, as is reflected in its legislative history, Rogers’ Law was enacted with the intent, at least in part, to suppress the vote of young voters in Michigan. As such, it violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
181. Injunctive and declaratory relief is needed to resolve this existing dispute, which presents an actual controversy between Defendants and Plaintiffs, who have adverse legal interests, because Rogers’ Law subjects Plaintiffs to serious and concrete injuries to their fundamental right to vote, including, most immediately, in the upcoming general election to be held on November 6, 2018.
182. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (i) declare that Rogers’ Law violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (ii) preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Secretary and the Director of the Bureau of Elections, their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from implementing, enforcing, or giving any effect to Rogers’ Law.
COUNT II Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, U.S. Const. Amends. I and XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 183. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
70

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.71 Page 71 of 75
184. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment, a state cannot utilize election practices that unduly burden or abridge the right to vote.
185. Absent relief from this Court, Plaintiffs and countless other young Michigan voters, including, in particular, college students who make up Plaintiffs’ membership and core consistency, will be denied the opportunity to cast a ballot or will face significant burdens in doing so due as a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement and the confusion that they cause.
186. The burdens imposed by Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, further, fall heaviest on Michigan’s young voters, who are also more likely to be first time voters and to be interacting with, and learning how to navigate, the elections process. This fact already imposes significant barriers to entry for young voters seeking to vote, which Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/InPerson requirement substantially exacerbates. See Eric Plutzer, supra.
187. In addition, college student voters are more likely to constantly change addresses and to seek to maintain two addresses. Rogers’ Law demonstrably discourages young people, in particular, from registering to vote and exercising their right to vote. And, under the First-Time/In-Person Requirement young, college-student voters registered at their family home and who are unable
71

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.72 Page 72 of 75
to return there to vote in-person on Election Day will be disenfranchised altogether.
188. In a case such as this, the Court must carefully balance the character and magnitude of injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiffs seek to vindicate against the justifications put forward by the State for the burdens imposed by the challenged provision. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). “However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.” Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008) (Stevens, J., controlling op.) (quotation marks omitted).
189. Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, through the burdens and confusion they impose, violate the right to vote of Plaintiffs, their membership and constituencies. See Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding plaintiffs’ right to vote burdened because of voter confusion); Bryanton v. Johnson, 902 F. Supp. 2d 983, 995-996 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (recognizing that “likely confusion at the polls interferes with the right of all voters” to vote); Coalition for Educ. v. Bd. of Elecs., 370 F. Supp. 42, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (recognizing that “confusion undoubtedly denied some [] voters the right to an effective vote”); see also Guare v. State, 167 N.H. 658, 665
72

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.73 Page 73 of 75
(N.H. 2015) (“Because the challenged language [on the voter registration form] is confusing and inaccurate, and because, . . . it could cause an otherwise qualified voter not to register to vote in New Hampshire, we hold that, as a matter of law, the burden it imposes upon the fundamental right to vote [under the state constitution] is unreasonable.”); Canegata v. Schoenbaum, 64 V.I. 252, 256 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2016) (recognizing that confusion “would undoubtedly interfere with the rights of the voters and cause them to be disenfranchised—the confusion will likely negatively impact the turn-out”).
190. These burdens are not outweighed by any legitimate, much less compelling, state interest in the law.
191. Injunctive and declaratory relief are needed to resolve this existing dispute, which presents an actual controversy between the Secretary and Plaintiffs, who have adverse legal interests, because Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/InPerson Requirement subject Plaintiffs and their members to serious, concrete, and irreparable injuries to their fundamental right to vote, including, most immediately, in the upcoming general elections to be held on November 6, 2018.
192. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (i) declare that Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (ii) preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Secretary and the Director of the Bureau of Elections,
73

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.74 Page 74 of 75
their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting
in concert with each or any of them, from implementing, enforcing, or giving any
effect to Rogers’ Law or the First-Time/In-Person Requirement.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment:
a) declaring, under the authority granted to this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Rogers’ Law violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b) declaring under the authority granted to this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
c) preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Secretary and the Director of the Bureau of Elections, their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from implementing, enforcing, or giving any effect to Rogers’ Law or the First-Time/In-Person Requirement under the authority granted to this Court by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2202;
d) awarding Plaintiffs their costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
e) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated this 30th day of August, 2018.
74

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 1 filed 08/30/18 PageID.75 Page 75 of 75
Respectfully submitted,
Marc E. Elias Elisabeth C. Frost* Jacki L. Anderson PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Facsimile: (202) 654-9959 melias@perkinscoie.com efrost@perkinscoie.com jackianderson@perkinscoie.com
Sambo Dul* PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012Telephone: (602) 351-8000 Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 sdul@perkinscoie.com
Mark Totten (Mich. Bar No. P70268) MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW** 648 N. Shaw Lane East Lansing, MI 48824 Telephone: (517) 432-6935 mark.totten@law.msu.edu
Counsel for the Plaintiffs *Applications for admission to be submitted or pending **Institutional affiliation provided for
identification purposes only
75

 </s> Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.104 Page 1 of 79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, AND THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF COLLEGE DEMOCRATS,
Plaintiffs, v. RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Michigan Secretary of State, and SALLY WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-12722-RHCSDD Honorable Robert H. Cleland

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, and THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF COLLEGE DEMOCRATS, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for DECLARATORY and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Defendant RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Michigan Secretary of State (the “Secretary”), and Defendant SALLY WILLIAMS, in her
1

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.105 Page 2 of 79
official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, and allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE 1. As this Court recently observed, “Michigan has one of the most restrictive voting regimes in the country.” Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, No. 16-cv-11844, 2018 WL 3769326 at *7 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2018) (“Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute III”). This is especially true for Michigan’s youngest voters, who are particularly vulnerable to restrictive voting laws and uniquely susceptible to voter confusion. Indeed, young voters in Michigan have historically, and to this day, been the target and victims of voting rules and requirements that are both intended to and have had the effect of making it substantially, and unjustifiably, more difficult for them to understand and navigate the process so as to exercise their right to participate in Michigan’s elections and to have an equal opportunity and voice in determining who governs the communities in which they reside. As a consequence, young voters in Michigan vote at very low rates: the difference between overall turnout and youth turnout is now larger in Michigan than in any other state. 2. This action specifically challenges: (i) Michigan Public Act 118 of 1999 (“Public Act 118”), which requires that a voter’s residence for voter registration purposes match the address listed on her Michigan driver’s license, see
2

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.106 Page 3 of 79
MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 257.307(1)(c), 257.315(1); and (ii) MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.509t(2), which is the current statute that requires that those who register to vote by mail or through third-party registration drives and are under 60 years of age must vote in-person the first time they vote (the “First-Time/In-Person Requirement”). While Public Act 118 and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement independently make registering and voting unduly confusing and difficult for young voters, in combination, they place nearly insurmountable barriers between many young voters and their fundamental right to vote.
3. Public Act 118 is commonly known in Michigan as “Rogers’ Law,” after then-Republican State Senator Mike Rogers, who sponsored and championed the legislation. Rogers’ Law, both by design and in practice, has made it significantly more difficult for eligible young voters—and, in particular, in-state college students who live and attend school in a region different than that where their family resides—to successfully navigate the process to exercise their right to participate in elections in Michigan. The legislative history of Rogers’ Law shows that, at the time the law was proposed, legislators were well-aware of the disproportionate and disenfranchising impact its matching-address requirement would have on young voters, particularly college students, and that it was intended to have that very impact. Indeed, revealing his true motive in sponsoring the legislation, Rogers himself stated that it is a “slap in the face to democracy” to
3

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.107 Page 4 of 79
permit “students” to “be registered in one place and live in another.” Statement of Sen. Rogers, Mich. Senate, Mar. 18, 1999 Transcript (“Tr.”) at 9. According to Rogers, “students” should “do it right,” and “vote responsibly,” i.e. not in their college communities; and they should be permitted to “register at the campus, if they feel that that’s their home” only if they “have their driver’s license moved there.” Id. at 10-11 (emphasis added).
4. Rogers’ own electoral circumstances, preceding and immediately after passage of the law, provide further evidence that the intent was to discourage young, college students from voting, and that the law accomplished precisely that. Many in the Legislature had opined that this was the case, and it quickly proved to be true. Immediately after passage of Rogers’ Law, Rogers went on to win—by 111 votes—the November 2000 election for Michigan’s 8th Congressional District (“CD-8”), which includes a large student population and the campus of Michigan State University. Rogers owes his victory in large part to the confusion and disenfranchisement of young, college-student voters resulting from the wholly unnecessary and inherently confusing law he had just championed and worked to pass.
5. Rogers’ Law particularly and disproportionately impacts young voters, especially those who attend college in Michigan while still retaining a connection to their family’s home elsewhere in the state. As compared to the
4

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.108 Page 5 of 79
general voting population, young voters are not only more likely to frequently move, but also to seek to maintain two addresses for different purposes: their residential address where they attend school for most of the year (but which regularly changes at least once a year, and in many cases more frequently), and their address at their family’s home. Rogers’ Law has caused widespread confusion among these voters, who have little to no experience with voting and navigating the surrounding election processes.
6. In particular, because of Rogers’ Law, Michigan’s young voters are regularly and persistently confused as to: (i) whether they may register to vote using their college address, if their driver’s license lists their parents’ address; (ii) whether changing their driver’s license address will result in negative consequences, including in terms of preserving health insurance coverage under their parents’ plans, qualifying as their parents’ dependent for tax purposes, and maintaining scholarships and financial aid; (iii) whether they must apply for a new driver’s license that reflects their on-campus address, if they seek to vote oncampus, and how to do so; and (iv) whether failure to comply with the matchingaddress requirement bars them from voting at their campus polling place, despite being registered there.
7. In the years since its enactment, the confusion and disenfranchisement resulting from Rogers’ Law has continued unabated. In fact, the cloud of confusion
5

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.109 Page 6 of 79
has stemmed from, and is reflected in, and perpetuated by, abundant and ongoing misinformation from election officials, local governments, universities, and the press. Defendant, the Secretary, has not only done nothing to address these rampant and persistent problems, she has actively contributed to them. Just months ago, in March 2018, the Secretary delivered remarks to a group of students at Michigan State University and told students living on or near campus that their campus address is not really their home, and therefore it would not be “fair” for students to register at their campus address. She went on to say that if students do choose to register to vote at their school address, they must first apply for and obtain a completely new driver’s license showing their school address prior to registering to vote at that address. Though neither of those statements comport with Michigan law, they comport entirely with the misleading and disenfranchising intent and resulting impact of Rogers’ Law.
8. Make no mistake: these students are almost universally legally eligible to vote in the communities in which they live and attend school. This is because they, like any other Michigan resident who is a U.S. citizen and 18 years of age or older, have a right to vote at their “residence,” which Michigan law defines to mean the place where a person “sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects, and has a regular place of lodging.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.11(1). The fact that many of Michigan’s student voters may wish to maintain, for the years during
6

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.110 Page 7 of 79
which they are attending college, their family’s home address as their permanent residence address on their driver’s license, should not disqualify them from voting in the communities where they attend school and live for the vast majority of the year. But that is precisely the effect that was both intended by Rogers’ Law and that has followed since its enactment.
9. On top of the confusion and barriers to voting created by Rogers’ Law, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, which, on its face, treats voters differently based on age, piles on an additional catch-22 for many young voters. College students, due to their young age, are more likely to be first-time voters, and because registration by mail or through a third-party registration drive is often the most convenient ways to register to vote in Michigan—particularly for young voters who often lack easy access to reliable transportation or, because they are brand new to the elections process, are more likely to not know where or how they may register in-person—many students register through those means. Indeed, many freshmen may not even become eligible to register to vote until they are already at their campuses, so they have no other option but to register by mail if they are registering using their family home address. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement prohibits these students from requesting an absentee ballot the first time they vote.
7

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.111 Page 8 of 79
10. As the Court recognized in Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute III, “[b]etween its prohibition on early voting and restriction on absentee voting, Michigan has one of the most restrictive voting regimes in the country,” under which, “except for a limited number of qualified residents, all Michigan voters must visit the polls on Election Day.” 2018 WL 3769326 at *7. See also Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 665 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute II”).1 The result is the complete disenfranchisement of those young, first-time voters who attend school far from their family home and, who—for a myriad of reasons beyond their control, including lack of access to reliable transportation and busy, inflexible schedules—are unable to travel home to vote in-person on a Tuesday in the middle of the academic semester.
11. As a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, both independently and in combination, young voters in Michigan have faced unequal and consequential barriers in registering to vote and voting for the first time, and they have even been denied the right to vote entirely for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualification or eligibility to participate in Michigan elections. Indeed, in many cases, these laws have resulted in a chilling effect that has kept eligible young voters in Michigan from voting and registering
1 Thirty-seven states allow early voting. 2018 WL 3769326, at *7.
8

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.112 Page 9 of 79
to vote entirely due to widespread confusion about the laws’ requirements and legal effects. If Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement are not enjoined, Michigan’s young voters, who are among the most vulnerable to restrictive voting laws, will continue to be deterred and prevented from exercising their right to vote
12. Because the First-Time/In-Person Requirement and Rogers’ Law were intended to and specifically target and burden the right to vote of Michigan’s young voters, they violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. And because Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement make it unduly confusing and difficult, and in some cases impossible, for Michigan’s young voters, particularly college students, to exercise their fundamental right to vote and to participate in elections in the communities in which they live, both laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution. 14. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
9

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.113 Page 10 of 79
15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, the Secretary of State and the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, who are sued in their official capacity only.
16. Venue is proper in the Southern Division of the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Local Court Rule 83.10, because, inter alia, the Defendants reside and do business in every county of the State and because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred there, as Plaintiff, the College Democrats at the University of Michigan, is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Plaintiff, the Michigan Federation of College Democrats, has eight chapters located in the Eastern District of Michigan.
17. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
18. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this case and Plaintiffs’ claims have occurred, been performed, or otherwise been waived.
PARTIES 19. Plaintiff, the College Democrats at the University of Michigan,2 is a student organization dedicated to increasing the participation and turnout rate of young voters in Michigan and to electing Democratic candidates. The College 2 The College Democrats at the University of Michigan are not acting on behalf or as representatives of the University of Michigan.
10

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.114 Page 11 of 79
Democrats at the University of Michigan has over 1,000 members, around 60 of whom are active members, and all of whom are college students. To achieve its mission, the College Democrats at the University of Michigan devotes substantial time, effort, and resources to encouraging voting by: (i) engaging in voter registration at various campus events; (ii) educating members of the campus community, including about candidates, issues, and the importance of voting; and (iii) engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts. As a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, both the College Democrats at the University of Michigan’s organizational mission and the voting rights of a substantial number of its members and constituency have been injured and will suffer irreparable injury. For example, many of the College Democrats at the University of Michigan’s members who are confused into believing that they must, or otherwise choose to, register to vote using their family home address rather than their campus address, will find it highly difficult—and, in some cases, impossible—to travel to their family home on Election Day to vote for the first time if they registered by mail.
20. Plaintiff, the College Democrats at Michigan State University,3 is a student organization dedicated to empowering young voters in Michigan and to electing Democratic candidates. The College Democrats at Michigan State 3 The College Democrats at Michigan State University are not acting on behalf or as representatives of Michigan State University.
11

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.115 Page 12 of 79
University has approximately 40 active members, all of whom are college students. To achieve its mission, the College Democrats at Michigan State University devotes substantial time, effort, and resources to encouraging voting by: (i) engaging in voter registration at various campus events; (ii) educating members of the campus community, including about candidates, issues, and the importance of voting; and (iii) engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts. As a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, both the College Democrats at Michigan State University’s organizational mission and the voting rights of a substantial number of its members have been and injured will suffer irreparable injury. For example, many of the College Democrats at Michigan State University’s members who are confused into believing that they must, or otherwise choose to, register to vote using their family home address rather than their campus address will find it highly difficult—and, in some cases, impossible—to travel to their family home on Election Day to vote for the first time if they registered by mail.
21. Plaintiff, the College Democrats at Northern Michigan University, is a student organization dedicated to empowering young voters in Michigan and to electing Democratic candidates. The College Democrats at Northern Michigan University has approximately 20 active members, all of whom are college students. To achieve its mission, the College Democrats at Northern Michigan University
12

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.116 Page 13 of 79
devotes substantial time, effort, and resources to encouraging voting by: (i) engaging in voter registration at various campus events; (ii) educating members of the campus community, including about candidates, issues, and the importance of voting; and (iii) engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts. As a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, both the College Democrats at Northern Michigan University’s organizational mission and the voting rights of a substantial number of its members have been and injured will suffer irreparable injury. For example, many of the College Democrats at Northern Michigan University who are confused into believing that they must, or otherwise choose to, register to vote using their family home address rather than their campus address will find it highly difficult—and, in some cases, impossible—to travel to their family home on Election Day to vote for the first time if they registered by mail.
22. Plaintiff, the Michigan Federation of College Democrats (the “Federation”), is a statewide political organization that seeks to build and maintain a strong youth voice in the State of Michigan. The Federation’s members are comprised of 19 College Democrats chapters, all of which are run by college students who work across Michigan to mobilize student support for Democratic causes and to increase political accountability on issues relevant to Michigan youth. To achieve its mission, the Federation devotes substantial time, effort, and resources to encouraging voting by: (i) educating its members on the process of
13

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.117 Page 14 of 79
voter registration through on-the ground support and formal presentations at biannual conferences; (ii) providing financial and other support for members’ oncampus voter registration efforts; and (iii) engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts, including social media campaigns. Thus, as a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, the Federation’s organizational mission and a substantial number of its members have been and will suffer injury to both their organizational mission and voting rights.
23. Defendant, RUTH JOHNSON, is the Secretary of State of Michigan and is named as a Defendant in her official capacity. She is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the driver’s license provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.202. In addition, she is Michigan’s chief elections officer and is thus responsible for the uniform administration and implementation of Michigan election law, see MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.21, including the administration and implementation of Rogers’ Law. In this role, her responsibilities include voter outreach and voter education efforts. The Secretary is also responsible for exercising supervisory control over local election officials, and she, personally and through the conduct of her employees, officers, agents, and servants, acted under color of state law at all times relevant to this action.
24. Defendant, SALLY WILLIAMS, is the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections and is named as a Defendant in her official capacity. As the
14

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.118 Page 15 of 79
Director of Elections, she is responsible for supervising the Bureau of Elections. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.32(1). In this role, she is “vested with the powers and shall perform the duties of the secretary of state under his or her supervision, with respect to the supervision and administration of the election laws.” MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.32(1).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. Michigan’s Restrictive Voting Regime
25. As this Court recently observed, “Michigan has one of the most restrictive voting regimes in the country.” Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson III, 2018 WL 3769326, at *7.
26. Michigan has an extremely onerous and outdated voter registration system. It is one of only 13 states that does not provide for online registration.4 Thus, a qualified voter may only register to vote by mail (including through a third-party registration drive) or in person at the office of the county or municipal clerk, a department of state branch office (comparable to department of motor vehicle (“DMV”) offices in other states), or other voter registration location specifically designated by the Secretary. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509v. Further,
4 Online Voter Registration, Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures (Dec. 6, 2017), http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voterregistration.aspx.
15

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.119 Page 16 of 79
while 17 states and the District of Columbia permit same-day registration,5 Michigan requires that voter registration applications be submitted at least 30 days before the election—the longest period permissible under federal law. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.497.6 And, while 13 states and the District of Columbia automatically register eligible citizens who interact with the DMV or other state agencies unless those voters opt-out,7 Michigan requires that voters opt-in in order to be registered to vote. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.500a.8
27. Once eligible voters are registered, most states allow them to cast a ballot before Election Day, either during an early voting period or by requesting an

5 Same Day Voter Registration, Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures (March 27,

2018),

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-

registration.aspx.

6 The National Voter Registration Act requires that states ensure a voter is

registered “if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is postmarked not

later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before the date

of the election.” 52 USC § 20507(a)(1)(B). Michigan is one of only 10 states that

requires registration not less than 30 days before an election. Voter Registration

Deadlines, Vote.org (Jan. 13, 2018), https://www.vote.org/voter-registration-

deadlines/.

7 See History of AVR & Implementation Dates, Brennan Center for Justice (June

24, 2018), https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/history-avr-implementation-

dates.

8 “The secretary of state . . . shall afford a person who appears in a department of

state branch office or a person who applies for renewal of an operator’s or

chauffeur’s license . . . an opportunity to complete an application to register to vote

or to change the person’s voting registration name or address. . . .” MICH. COMP.

LAWS § 168.500a.

16

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.120 Page 17 of 79
absentee ballot.9 Michigan, however, is one of only 13 states that do not permit some form of early voting or no-excuse absentee voting. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.758; see also Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute II, 833 F.3d at 665. In addition to prohibiting early voting, Michigan imposes severe limitations on absentee voting, permitting voters to request an absentee ballot only if they meet one of the following six narrow criteria: (a) physical disability; (b) religious reason prevent attendance at the polls; (c) service as a precinct inspector in another precinct; (d) being 60 years of age or older; (e) absence from the township or city for the entire period the polls are open; or (f) confinement in jail awaiting arraignment or trial. Id. Even those who qualify for an absentee ballot must request one prior to each election unless their jurisdiction chooses to maintain a permanent absent voter list, which no jurisdiction is required to do; and clerks are prohibited from mailing absentee ballot applications without having received a verbal or written request.10
28. Within this already restrictive voting regime, Michigan’s lawmakers and election officials have had a history of targeting young voters, imposing rules
9 Absentee and Early Voting, Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures (Aug. 17, 2017), http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-earlyvoting.aspx. 10 Michigan Sec’y of State, Election Officials’ Manual Ch. 6 at 3 (2017), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/VI_Michigans_Absentee_Voting_Proce ss_265992_7.pdf.
17

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.121 Page 18 of 79
and requirements that directly suppress registration and turnout among this population, particularly college students.
29. Voter suppression targeting this group of voters in particular can be quite consequential. The electorate in Michigan has long been very closely divided in its support for the two major political parties. Most recently, in 2016, 48% of voters who cast ballots in Michigan’s 14 races for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for Republican candidates, while 47% voted for Democratic candidates. Donald Trump won the state with only 47.50% of the vote, as compared to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 47.27% of the vote share—a difference of only 10,704 votes.
30. College students comprise more than seven percent of Michigan’s voting-age population and are more likely than the general population to vote for Democratic Party candidates. In Fall 2000, 542,652 students were enrolled in Michigan institutions of higher education, while the voting-age population in 2000 was around 7.34 million. By Fall 2016, the number of students had risen to 594,895, while the estimated voting-age population was 7.68 million. At Michigan State University alone, 43,366 students were enrolled as of Fall 2000, and that number had grown to 50,340 as of Fall 2016.
18

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.122 Page 19 of 79
31. Although recent efforts to suppress the young (and particularly,
student) vote have been more subtle, Michigan has a long history of explicitly
making it more difficult for that population to participate in elections.
32. For over 75 years, beginning as early as 1893, Michigan’s statutory
provision defining residency for voting purposes had been interpreted to mean that
“a student must overcome a rebuttable presumption that he is not a resident in the
locale of the institution of learning.” Wilkins v. Bentley, 385 Mich. 670, 675 (1971)
(citing Wolcott v. Holcomb, 97 Mich. 361 (1893); People v. Osborn, 170 Mich.
143 (1912); Attorney General ex rel. Miller v. Miller, 266 Mich. 127 (1934)),
abrogated on other grounds as explained in In re Request for Advisory Opinion
Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich. 1, 33, 740 N.W.2d 444, 462 (2007).11
33. This interpretation was motivated by the fear “that the students would
have a significant political impact if they were granted the elective franchise[,] . . .
overwhelming the townspeople at the polls.” Wilkins, 385 Mich. at 691. As the
11 The provision in effect at the time, like the current statute, defined residence “for registration and voting purposes . . . to mean that place at which a person habitually sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects and has a regular place of lodging.” Wilkins, 385 Mich. at 675 (quoting MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.11(a)). And “[s]hould a person have more than 1 residence, . . . that place at which such person resides the greater part of the time shall be his or her official residence . . . .” Id. As relevant here, the statute further specified (and still does) that “[n]o elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence . . . While a student at any institution of learning . . . .” Id. (quoting MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 168.11(b)).
19

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.123 Page 20 of 79
Michigan Supreme Court later noted, “[c]learly, . . . [the law], as applied to students, disenfranchise[d] many interested and concerned citizens.” Id. at 687.
34. Not until 1971, after eight University of Michigan students sued following denial of their voter registration applications in Ann Arbor, did the Michigan Supreme Court invalidate that rebuttable presumption, holding that “students must be treated the same as all other registrants. No special questions, forms, identification, etc., may be required of students.” Wilkins, 385 Mich. at 694. As the Court explained, “while the law defining voting residence for other citizens . . . is clear and unequivocal, the effect of the law, as applied to students, . . . varie[d] from city to city and from local clerk to local clerk.” Id. at 677. Therefore, in Michigan, “the standards which students must meet in order to vote in the locality in which their college is located . . . [were] so vague as to be tantamount to no standards; thus each registration clerk determine[d] himself which factors will overcome the presumption against student registrability in his city.” Id. at 677-68.
35. Indeed, “Ann Arbor use[d] an elaborate questionnaire before allowing students to register,” and plaintiffs in the case “were asked questions concerning bank accounts; where they obtained their support; whether they owned or leased property; and where they spent their vacations.” Id. at 678. As the court explained, however, “these questions concerning wealth, property ownership, and travel, if
20

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.124 Page 21 of 79

used as criteria to establish residence for voting purposes, are constitutionally

impermissible.” Id.

36. Despite the Michigan Supreme Court’s admonition that “it is no

longer constitutionally permissible to exclude students from the franchise because

of the fear of the way they may vote,” the specter and manifestations of this

impermissible fear persist in Michigan’s electoral systems.

37. For example, in Ann Arbor, two City Council members represent each of the city’s five wards. City of Ann Arbor City Charter §§ 1.3, 4.1.12 Despite there

being over 46,000 students enrolled at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 201713—almost 38% of the total population of Ann Arbor14—students do not

approach a majority of any of the city’s wards. Instead, the ward boundaries have

been drawn to radiate out from the center of campus, so that each ward is shaped

like a slice of a pie, with the smallest part of that pie constituting a fraction of

campus. The result is that the student population is effectively split among the five

wards and their voting power sufficiently negated so as to make it extremely

12

http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/CharterNovember2011.pdf; see also City Council, City of

Ann

Arbor

Michigan,

https://www.a2gov.org/departments/city-

council/Pages/Home.aspx (“The City Council consists of the mayor and 10

Council members, two from each of Ann Arbor’s five wards.”).

13 Enrollment, Ann Arbor Campus, University of Michigan Office of Budget and

Planning

(Oct.

26,

2017),

http://obp.umich.edu/root/facts-

figures/students/admissions-enrollment/enrollment-umaa/.

14 See QuickFacts Ann Arbor city, Michigan, U.S. Census Bureau (July 1, 2017),

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/annarborcitymichigan/PST045217.

21

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.125 Page 22 of 79

difficult for them to command enough of the vote share to elect candidates of their

choice to the City Council.15

38.

As will be discussed, barriers to student voting also persist on

the state level, including, in particular, through the two laws that are the subject of

this challenge.

II. Rogers’ Law and the Matching Address Requirement

39. Rogers’ Law—like the rebuttable presumption against residency that

Michigan historically applied to students in college communities, and the slicing

up of the student population by Ann Arbor’s ward boundaries—is yet another

effort to hamper the electoral power and participation of young voters in Michigan.

40. Introduced on February 16, 1999 by then-State Senator Mike Rogers,

Rogers’ Law passed the Republican-controlled Legislature along party lines. Mich.

H. Journal, 90th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1358-59 (June 8, 1999); Mich. S. Journal, 90th

Leg., Reg. Sess., 1118-19 (June 10, 1999). 16

15 See Ward Boundaries Map, City Clerk, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, https://www.a2gov.org/departments/cityclerk/Elections/Pages/WardBoundariesMap.aspx; see also Austen Hufford, Drawing the Vote: Ann Arbor City Wards Split Students, The Michigan Daily (Feb. 3, 2015), https://www.michigandaily.com/article/drawing-vote-ann-arborcity-wards-split-students. 16 Prior to the enactment of Rogers’ Law in 1999, Michigan did not require voters to use the same address for purposes of their driver’s license and voter registration. On March 1, 1999, then-Attorney General of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, issued a formal opinion so concluding. See 1999 Mich. OAG No. 7010 (opining voter could maintain a driver’s license address different from his voter registration
22

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.126 Page 23 of 79
41. Rogers’ Law amended Michigan’s Motor Vehicle Code to require that
the address listed on a voter’s Michigan driver’s license match the address at which
that voter is registered to vote. In relevant part, the statute states:
The following notice shall be included to inform the applicant that under sections 509o and 509r of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.509o and 168.509r, the secretary of state is required to use the residence address provided on this application as the applicant’s residence address on the qualified voter file for voter registration and voting:
“NOTICE: Michigan law requires that the same address be used for voter registration and driver license purposes. Therefore, if the residence address you provide in this application differs from your voter registration address as it appears on the qualified voter file, the secretary of state will automatically change your voter registration to match the residence on this application, after which your voter registration at your former address will no longer be valid for voting purposes. A new voter registration card, containing the information of your polling place, will be provided to you by the clerk of the jurisdiction where your residence address is located.”
MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.307(1)(c); see also MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(1)
(“The secretary of state shall provide the person changing his or her residence
address the notice required by section 307(1)(c) that, under . . . MCL 168.509o and
168.509r, the secretary of state is required to use the residence address provided on
address, as Section 509o(3) of the Michigan Election Code, which stated that “[t]he secretary of state or a designated voter registration agency shall not allow a person to indicate a different address than the address in either the secretary of state’s or designated voter registration agency’s files to be placed in the qualified voter file,” “does not prohibit a voter from registering to vote at an address different from that listed on his or her driver’s license”).
23

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.127 Page 24 of 79
this change of address application as the person’s residence address on the qualified voter file for voter registration and voting.”).
42. Pursuant to Rogers’ Law, Michigan requires that a driver “who changes his or her residence before the expiration of a license . . . shall immediately notify the secretary of state of his or her new residence address.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(1).17 When the Secretary receives a change of address notification, she “shall change the person’s driver license record to indicate the new residence address.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(2). The Secretary is then required to send the Michigan driver “a new license or a label or some other mechanism containing the new residence address,” which must be affixed to the driver’s license. Id.
43. If the holder of a Michigan driver’s license fails to “report a change of his or her residence address” and “there is no response to a notice mailed to the residence address shown by the record of the secretary of state or if the person has provided the secretary of state a mailing address different from his or her residence address and there is no response to a notice mailed to that mailing address,” “the
17 The statute specifies that such a change of address notification must be made “in a manner prescribed by the secretary of state and may include notification by personally appearing at a branch office of the secretary of state or other location designated by the secretary of state, or a notification by mail, telephone, electronically, by submitting a voter registration application unless the person registers to vote in a city, village, or township that prohibits the operation of motor vehicles by law or ordinance, or by any other means prescribed by the secretary of state.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(1).
24

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.128 Page 25 of 79
secretary of state may immediately suspend or revoke his or her license.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(3). In addition, “[a] person who fails to report a change of his or her residence address is responsible for a civil infraction.” Id.
44. If an individual “knowingly report[s] a change of address to the secretary of state for himself or herself that is not his or her residence address,” that individual is subject to a misdemeanor charge, “punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of $1,000.00, or both.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(4). In addition, “the secretary of state may suspend the person’s operator’s or chauffeur’s license for 6 months.” Id.18 III. The Legislative History of Rogers’ Law Evidences Its Discriminatory
Intent 45. The legislative history of Rogers’ Law demonstrates that the legislators who sponsored, promoted, and enacted the law were well-aware that the intent of the legislation was to discourage and make it more difficult for young people, particularly college students, to vote, and especially in their college communities. 46. During the floor debate, Democratic State Representative Lynne Martinez described “young people” as “the targets of the bill.” Statement of Rep. Lynne Martinez, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 7 (emphasis
18 In the event of a second misdemeanor charge, “the secretary of state shall revoke the person’s operator’s or chauffeur’s license.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(5).
25

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.129 Page 26 of 79
added). She asserted that Rogers’ Law was introduced “to restrict access to the ballot of certain people who may wish to vote for [a Republican legislator’s] opponent,” and stated, “I think that trying to restrict [college students’] access to the ballot, where they live a good percentage of their lives while they’re in college, is absolutely wrong.” Id.
47. Democratic State Representative Mark Schauer similarly stated on the floor that “the real motive” of the law is to “mak[e] it more difficult for young people to vote in their college communities.” Statement of Rep. Mark Schauer, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 16.
48. Similarly, State Representative David Woodward described Rogers’ Law as “a way to cripple the ability for young people to take an active role in a process that is critical to our society, critical to our democracy, and critical to the livelihood of our state.” Statement of Rep. David Woodward, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 18-19.
49. Representative Elizabeth Brater stated on the floor, that Rogers’ Law would “limit the rights of our youngest citizens who have the right to vote to vote” and would “creat[e] in them the appearance that you do not wish them to participate in a democratic process.” Statement of Rep. Liz Brater, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 23.
26

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.130 Page 27 of 79
50. Put another way, as State Representative A.T. Frank stated, “[w]e now put up another barrier to stop [young voters] from their coming into the process.” Statement of Rep. A.T. Frank, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 25.
51. This particular brand of criticism was so wide-spread that even the analysis of Rogers’ Law prepared by the House Legislative Analysis Section at the time the bill was under consideration by the Michigan House (the “Legislative Analysis”) stated that “some people suspect this is the intent of the bill, to dilute student voting.” Michigan House Legislative Analysis of New Voter Registration Requirement, Senate Bill 306, Driver License/Voter Address, House Legislative Analysis Section 3 (May 26, 1999) (emphasis added).19
52. The legislative history of Rogers’ Law also demonstrates that legislators were well-aware of the disproportionate impact that Rogers’ Law would have on young voters, especially college students, and that it would lead to significant burdens on their right to vote, and even disenfranchisement.
19 Bill analyses are nonpartisan summaries of pending legislation prepared after a committee reports a bill to the full House. The House Legislative Analysis is prepared by the nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency for use by House members in their deliberations, and includes “a description of the problem being addressed, arguments for and against the bill, and positions of interested organizations.” House Fiscal Agency, About Us, https://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/About.asp (last accessed Aug. 29, 2018).
27

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.131 Page 28 of 79
53. On June 2, 1999, during debate on the bill on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, Democratic State Representative Laura Baird stated that “we’re back to the issue of voters’ rights and whether or not the State of Michigan is going to deny the right of people who aren’t living at their residence to vote,” “primarily students.” Statement of Rep. Laura Baird, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 2.
54. Democratic State Representative Deborah Cherry stated that if Rogers’ Law had been the law when she was in college, it “would have made voting difficult for me when I was a student and for many of you who voted in the place where you went to college.” Statement of Rep. Deborah Cherry, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 6.
55. Democratic State Representative Julie Dennis recognized that Rogers’ Law would result in “driv[ing] young [people] away from the polls.” Statement of Rep. Julie Dennis, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 26.
56. Democratic State Representative Jack Minore also recognized that college students “would find it difficult to vote” under Rogers’ Law, which “would be restrictive of their voting rights.” Statement of Rep. Jack Minore, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 11-12.
28

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.132 Page 29 of 79
57. Democratic State Representative Paul Gieleghem characterized Rogers’ Law as “creat[ing] too many hoops” for college student voting. Statement of Rep. Paul Gieleghem, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 13.
58. Democratic Representative Vera Rison asked: “why we are saying to our children we want you when you leave home to change your address,” and “then when you come back home, you can’t vote in an election because of the change of address.” Statement of Rep. Vera Rison, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 33.
59. Democratic State Senator Dianne Byrum issued a floor statement protesting the passage of Rogers’ Law, after an amendment to exempt college students from its matching address requirement failed. She emphasized that “[w]e should be about encouraging people to participate in one of the most basic rights— voting”; “[w]e should not be discouraging that participation.” Statement of Sen. Byrum, J. OF THE SENATE No. 26 at 371 (Mar. 23, 1999), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tfi3vaw0qxgn2natks1lzml2))/documents/19992000/Journal/Senate/pdf/1999-SJ-03-23-026.pdf (emphasis added).
60. In contrast, there were multiple statements by legislators who sponsored or supported the bill that made clear that, not only were they unconcerned about the negative impact it would have on the voting rights of
29

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.133 Page 30 of 79
students, but that, in their view, students should not vote in the communities in which they attend school.
61. Senator Rogers himself revealed that his motives for passing the legislation centered around student voters, stating that it is a “slap in the face to democracy” to permit students to “be registered in one place and live in another.” Statement of Sen. Rogers, Mich. Senate, Mar. 18, 1999 Tr. at 9. According to Rogers, “students” should “do it right,” and “vote responsibly,” i.e. not vote in their college campus communities. Id. at 10-11. Instead, they should be permitted to “register at the campus, if they feel that that’s their home” only if they “have their driver’s license moved there.” Id.
62. Similarly, Republican Representative Rick Johnson, who voted for Rogers’ Law, stated that “you should vote in one place and make that decision,” whether they vote “in their university town or back home.” Statement of Rep. Johnson, Mich. House of Rep., June 3, 1999 Tr. at 29-30. In making these misleading statements suggesting that students were prone to commit voter fraud by registering and/or voting in more than one place, neither Senator Rogers nor Representative Johnson referenced any evidence that any such fraud actually occurred.
63. The Legislative Analysis also informed members of the Michigan Legislature of concerns that young voters, particularly college students, would be
30

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.134 Page 31 of 79
disproportionately impacted. Under arguments against the bill, the Legislative Analysis identified “[c]ollege students,” as “perhaps the most obvious example” of voters who are likely to have “what might be considered multiple residences and allegiances,” and thus be directly impacted by Rogers’ Law. SB 306 House Legislative Analysis at 3, Driver License/Voter Address, House Legislative Analysis Section (May 26, 1999). It also stated that, “[a] student who leaves the home of parents to spend nine months per year for four or five (or more) years at school might want to leave the address on his or her driver license the same but register to vote and participate in politics where they are in school.” Id. “Such a student might move numerous times during the school years and changing a driver license address each time would be a nuisance.” Id. Thus, “[c]ritics of the bill are concerned that the legislation will discourage voting and decrease participation, particularly among students in college towns.” Id.
64. Elections officials and non-profit organizations also protested that Rogers’ Law was meant to make it harder for young voters, particularly college students, who are more likely to support Democratic Party candidates, to vote.
65. The non-partisan League of Women Voters of Michigan similarly concluded that “1999, PA 118 . . . was passed by the Michigan Legislature to target students by requiring the resident address on the driver’s license to be the same as the resident address.” Update: Michigan’s Voting Laws, LEAGUE OF
31

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.135 Page 32 of 79

WOMEN

VOTERS

OF

MICHIGAN

(July

30,

2014),

http://lwvmi.org/issues/documents/VotingRtsupdate8-14.pdf (emphasis added).

66. Young voters themselves also believed that Rogers’ Law was

designed to target student voters. For example, contemporaneously with its

passage, University of Michigan student Abe Raffi stated, “[t]his law attempts to

silently drag students out of the democratic process.” Six University Student

Assemblies File Suit to Prevent Implementation of New Law,” American Civil

Liberties Union (February 24, 2000), http://www.aclumich.org/article/six-

university-student-assemblies-file-suit-prevent-implementation-new-law (emphasis

added).

IV. Rogers Had Clear Incentive to Suppress the Influence of Young Voters 67. In addition to the legislative history and contemporary public reaction

discussed above, Rogers’ own electoral circumstances, both preceding and

immediately after passage of the law, further evidence that the intent of the law

was to discourage young, college students from voting, and that the law

accomplished precisely that.

68. On March 28, 1999, then-Representative Debbie Stabenow announced

she would run for U.S. Senate and, therefore, would not seek reelection to a third

term as the U.S. Representative from Michigan’s Eighth Congressional District

(“CD-8”). By that time, Rogers had already organized his principal campaign

32

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.136 Page 33 of 79
committee, which filed with the Federal Election Commission on March 19, 1999. Democrat Dianne Byrum formally announced her candidacy on April 12, 1999. CD-8 included only part of Rogers’ State Senate District, but it encompassed all of Byrum’s State Senate District, including the campus of Michigan State University.
69. CD-8 was a crucial swing district in the 2000 House elections. Early expectations were that the race would be tight, and early polling confirmed these expectations.20 The student vote in East Lansing, however, was known to be a heavily Democratic constituency in CD-8. In the seven precincts on the Michigan State University campus, Byrum won more than 63% of the vote in her 1998 race for State Senate. And Democrat Debbie Stabenow received more than 76% of the vote of those precincts in her 1998 contest for CD-8, a race that she won with only 57% of the vote of the district as a whole.
70. Rogers clearly stood to benefit electorally from the passage of Rogers’ Law. And, as illustrated by the legislative history discussed above, Rogers was well-aware of concerns about the disproportionate impact that Rogers’ Law would have on college students and that it would suppress the influence of young, college-student voters, particularly Michigan State University students in the CD-8
20 See Competitive House Race Chart, COOK POLITICAL REPORT 53 (June 14, 1999) (noting CD-8 had a 0.3% Democratic lean in the Cook Presidential Vote Index and rating the 2000 race as a toss-up); A Hardware Democrat, and a Republican of Steel, NATIONAL JOURNAL’S CONGRESS DAILY (Sept. 27, 1999) (reporting a 39%-34% lead for Byrum in a Sept. 12¬–14, 1999 poll).
33

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.137 Page 34 of 79
race. Public criticism was pointed: in addition to the public concerns discussed above, the press reported that “[t]wo college groups - the College Democrats of Michigan and the Michigan State University Democrats - are saying the author of the legislation, state Sen. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, is purposely trying to make it difficult for students to vote.” THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATE & LOCAL WIRE (Apr. 19, 1999).
71. And, as discussed below, the impact of Rogers’ Law was just as anticipated. V. Rogers’ Law Created Massive Confusion and Burdens for Student
Voters, Prompting Students to Challenge the Law in Court 72. In the immediate aftermath of the passage of Rogers’ Law, there was widespread confusion and concern regarding the abridgment of the right to vote. Students and election officials were unaware of how to comply with the requirements, leading to students being denied the right to vote by elections officials. 73. In the first election in which Rogers’ Law was implemented, “many students were unaware of the law until they were turned away from the East Lansing polls on Election Day.” Fix the System, THE STATE NEWS (Nov. 16, 2000), http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2000/11/Fix_the_system. Indeed, “[t]he law complicated the process, especially for students who were voting for the first time and were unfamiliar with the process.” Id.
34

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.138 Page 35 of 79
74. Further, when Rogers’ Law was first implemented, “rumors [were] spread that by registering in East Lansing [or another college town] instead of at home, students risked being kicked off their parent’s health insurance plans and having their credit rating adversely effected,” which “kept more students away from the polls in East Lansing.” Philip Moon, supra. These rumors were false, but they were pervasive and effective in suppressing the student vote, and, as will be discussed, they have persisted.
75. Indeed, analysis of precinct-level data from the Secretary’s office from 1998 to 2014 reveal a large initial impact on registration and voting in college areas, and that impact has persisted over time. In particular, Michigan’s major college towns experienced a decrease in turnout relative to their surrounding counties in the two elections immediately after the reform, and in five out of six counties examined, this increased turnout gap has persisted to this day.
76. These immediate impacts of Rogers’ Law prompted four Michigan students and representatives from six university student assemblies to file a lawsuit challenging the law, alleging, inter alia, that “[t]he law will discourage voter registration and political activity among college students.” See Complaint at 2, Cent. Mich. Univ. Student Gov’t Ass’n v. Miller, No. 00-10070 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2000) (“CMUSGA v. Miller Compl.”). According to the lawsuit, in which the students were represented by the local Michigan affiliate of the American Civil
35

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.139 Page 36 of 79
Liberties Union, Rogers’ Law “will place serious burdens on the fundamental right
to vote, particularly for college students, who, because of their frequent moves
within the college community generally maintain a fixed driver’s license address as
their family home, but whose residence in the college community entitles them to maintain their voting registration there.” Id.21
77. The Court, however, rejected plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that they
were not likely to succeed on the merits and denying plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction. Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for
Change of Venue and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Cent.
Mich. Univ. Student Gov’t Ass’n v. Miller, No. 00-10070 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17,
2000).
78. In so finding, the Court emphasized that, the plaintiffs, who filed suit
shortly after the law’s enactment and obtained a decision before Rogers’ Law had
been in place for any major election, “offered only conjecture in support of their
21 The plaintiffs brought five causes of action, claiming that Rogers’ Law is: (1) preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”); (2) imposes on Michigan citizens an impermissible burden on the fundamental right to vote and deprives them of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (3) invidiously discriminates between long-term residents of Michigan and those who have more recently become residents, impermissibly burdens the right to travel, and deprives Michigan citizens of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) violates Article 4, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution by amending the Michigan Election Law by reference; and (5) violates Article 4, § 24 of the Michigan Constitution in that its title does not express its evident object of amending the Michigan Election Law. CMUSG v. Miller Comp. at 14-18.
36

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.140 Page 37 of 79
claim that the discouragement of college student voting motivated [Rogers’ Law],” id. at 25, and that, “the only real consequence of the new law is that students will be forced to have their college address on their driver’s licenses.” Id. at 7.
79. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that “[i]t is understandable that confusion on the part of students might hamper voter registration efforts,” id. at 8, and stated that “Plaintiffs’ most compelling argument of harm is that college students are now confused and apprehensive about voting,” id. at 9. Nonetheless, the Court dismissed those compelling concerns based on assurances from Christopher M. Thomas, then Michigan’s Director of Elections, that a “massive” “educational effort is underway,” including a “public information campaign to inform college students about the implementation of” the law and plans to “place advertisements in 50 college newspapers.” Id. at 8. Thus, the Court stated, “[h]opefully, the planned educational effort will alleviate [students’] fears and encourage participation.” Id. at 29.
80. Upon information and belief, no “massive” public education campaign, however, actually materialized, and whatever public education has been conducted has plainly not alleviated the widespread and ongoing confusion that Rogers’ Law has injected between young people and their right to vote.
81. To the contrary, and as discussed further below, misleading and flatout wrong information has been widely disseminated from multiple authoritative
37

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.141 Page 38 of 79
and trusted sources, including the Defendant Secretary, local election officials, universities, and the media.
82. Over time, that confusion and misinformation, in combination with other aspects of Michigan’s particularly restrictive voting regime, including specifically the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, has had the pronounced effect of unduly burdening the right to vote of young voters, and, in many cases, as evidenced in particular by marked and increasing disparities in younger voter turnout—particularly in college communities—has effectively disenfranchised them altogether.
83. While the evidence of this impact may have been unclear (or “speculative”) in 2000, it has since become undeniable. VI. After Implementation of Rogers’ Law, Rogers Won the CD-8 Race by a
Razor-Thin Margin in the 2000 Election, When Hundreds of Michigan State University Students were Turned Away at the Polls 84. In the aftermath of the students’ failed legal challenge against Rogers’ Law, Rogers went on to win the CD-8 race by a razor-thin margin in the November 2000 election. 85. In the final official tally, Rogers became a U.S. Congressman by a margin of only 111 votes (0.0373% of the 297,609 votes cast). 86. Voters at the seven precincts on the Michigan State campus overwhelmingly voted for Byrum over Rogers, 3,063 to 948, or 76% to 24%.
38

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.142 Page 39 of 79

87. But turnout at the precincts on the Michigan State campus was

depressed and student voters in particular had difficulty navigating the elections

process to successfully cast ballots.

88. “This election more than any other was rife with confusion,” said East

Lansing City Manager Ted Staton. Jamie Gumbrecht, Task Force Looks to Help

Voters,

STATE

NEWS

(Apr.

3,

2001),

https://statenews.com/article/2001/04/task_force_looks_to_help_voters.

89. “[Rogers’ Law] complicated the process, especially for students who

were voting for the first time and were unfamiliar with the process.” See Fix the

System,

THE

STATE

NEWS

(Nov.

16,

2000),

http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2000/11/Fix_the_system).

90. It was reported that Rogers’ electoral victory in the 2000

congressional election, “was likely influenced by . . . [a] law requiring voters to

vote where their driver’s license says they live” as “[t]his prevented many

Michigan State University students, who tend to be Democratic, from voting from

their campus addresses, as they have in the past.” Jack Lessenberry, Its Strictly the

Party Line in Michigan Primary, THE MICHIGAN BLADE (Aug. 4, 2002),

http://www.toledoblade.com/JackLessenberry/2002/08/04/It-s-strictly-the-party-

line-in-Michigan-primary.html.

39

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.143 Page 40 of 79
91. In response to the 2000 election, a bipartisan 18-member Michigan Task Force on Voting Reform received testimony at six hearings across the state and made a public report in September 2001. Indeed, 20 Michigan State University students testified before the Task Force on Voting Reform that they were denied the opportunity to vote. Id.
92. The problems were so egregious that Senator Byrum initially called for a revote in the campus precincts. As she later said, Rogers’ Law “was purely aimed at Michigan State University and trying to shut down the student vote . . . because those would obviously advantage me. That was my Senate District. I was better known; I worked the campus aggressively.” Marisa Schultz, The Rise of Mike Rogers, DETROIT NEWS (July 4, 2013). Senator Byrum also said: “Students had difficulty voting. I think they would have had an impact on the election. We’ll never know.” Gumbrecht, Task Force, supra.
93. The impact Rogers’ Law had on student voting is further shown by the precipitous drop in registration in Michigan’s largest college towns immediately following its implementation.
94. Less than two years after its enactment, the Detroit Free Press reported that, as a “result” of Rogers’ Law, “fewer students are registering to vote in Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Kalamazoo and Mt. Pleasant, home to some of Michigan’s largest universities.” Jamie Gumbrecht, New Law Affects College
40

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.144 Page 41 of 79
Voters; Registration Change May Lower Numbers, DETROIT FREE PRESS (Oct. 5, 2002).
95. From 2000 to 2002, “registered voter numbers have dropped from 29,463 to 26,242 in East Lansing and 91,847 to 84,512 in Ann Arbor.” Id. This was a total drop in voter registration of 13.6% in Ann Arbor, and 11% in East Lansing. Philip Moon, supra. See also Gumbrecht, supra (“[S]ome students. . . offer a cold stare to registration drive workers” due to Rogers’ Law). VII. Legislative Efforts to Repeal Rogers’ Law, Though Unsuccessful,
Detailed the Law’s Negative Impact on Young Voters 96. After the detrimental impact on young voters resulting from implementation of Rogers’ Law, Democratic members of the Michigan Legislature repeatedly attempted to account for, and address, its negative consequences. Though each of these efforts failed, the legislative history surrounding them further highlight the discriminatory impact and intent of Rogers’ Law. 97. For example, Representative Woodward, who voted against Rogers’ Law, introduced an amendment in 2001 to Senate Bill 173, a bill to eliminate straight-ticket voting, which would have required the Secretary to “study and report back to the legislature . . . the deleterious effects on students and young voters of Public Act 118 of 1999.” Mich. H. Journal, 91st Leg., Reg. Sess., 2594 (Dec. 6, 2001). The amendment failed on a strict party-line vote of 46 Democrats in favor and 55 Republicans against.
41

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.145 Page 42 of 79
98. In 2004, State Senator Brater proposed a four-bill package to repeal Rogers’ Law. That failed on another strict party-line vote of 16 Democrats in favor of passage and 22 Republicans against. Mich. Sen. Journal, 92nd Leg., Reg. Sess., 1885, 1894 (Sept. 15, 2004).
99. In 2007, State Representative Rebekah Warren introduced House Bill 4447, which would have provided that “an individual may change the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffeur’s license issued pursuant to the Michigan vehicle code . . . or official state personal identification card. . . , without changing his or her address for purposes of the qualified voter file or may change his or her address on the qualified voter file without changing the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffeur’s license issued under the Michigan Vehicle Code . . . or official state personal identification card . . . .”
100. The Michigan House Legislative Analysis of House Bill 4447 prepared by non-partisan legislative staff described “the apparent problem” that the matching-address requirement of Rogers’ Law “sometimes prevents lawfully registered voters from casting their ballots.” Michigan House Fiscal Agency, Legislative Analysis of Bill to Allow Different Addresses For Driver’s License and Voting, House Bills 4447 & 4448 at 1 (Jan. 14, 2008). Thus, “[i]n order to ensure that all registered voters find a lawful path to vote in every election, bills have been introduced to permit a resident address on a driver license (or personal
42

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.146 Page 43 of 79
identification card) that is different than the voter registration address (on the Qualified Voter File).” Id.
101. The Legislative Analysis also highlighted testimony offered by the Michigan Election Reform Alliance (“MERA”) based on its members’ research and experience, describing three ways in which Rogers’ Law deterred and disenfranchised eligible voters. MERA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization and is recognized as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charity by the Internal Revenue Service. Its active members include election administrators and election observers.
102. First, MERA cited “many examples of error in local clerks’ offices, as voters seek to align their new driver’s license addresses with changes in the Qualified Voter File.” Id. In fact, MERA had recorded, “in one voting precinct alone, more than 30 cases where voters applied to vote from an address not listed in the precinct poll-book, some of which were the result of administrative error in the office of the city clerk when new changes of address were never, or erroneously, recorded.” Id.
103. Second, MERA described confusion and fears, whether accurate or not, that “voters in college towns who do successfully change the addresses on their driver’s licenses and on the Qualified Voter File sometimes risk losing their family health care coverage, since they no longer live ‘at home.’” Id.
43

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.147 Page 44 of 79
104. And, finally, “voters in college towns who do not change their driver’s license to reflect their changes of address are prevented from voting in elections back home by casting an absentee ballot, since Michigan law requires a first-time absent[ee] ballot voter to make application for the absent[ee] voter ballot in person, at the office of the hometown office clerk[, and f]or many university students there is little time . . . to travel home and apply.” Id.
105. When HB 4447 was considered before the Committee on Ethics and Elections in 2008, there was a substantial amount of testimony regarding the negative impact that Rogers’ Law had by that time clearly had on student voting and political participation by Michigan’s youngest voters.
106. For example, Philip Shepard, a Professor Emeritus at Michigan State University and a member of MERA, testified in support of House Bill 4447, concluding that “[t]he current law creates an opportunity for administrative error that can easily lead to a voter being improperly disenfranchised.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 2 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Philip Shepard, Michigan Election Reform Alliance).
107. Professor Shepard described errors he personally observed as an Election Challenger in East Lansing in 2006, in which voters had changed either
44

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.148 Page 45 of 79
their voter registration or driver’s license address and yet the state had failed to properly record the change, leading to confusion at the polls. Id.
108. Mr. Shepard noted these errors were “occasioned solely by the requirement in current law that the driver address match the voter address,” and could “easily lead to a voter being improperly denied the right to vote,” with a “much greater” effect expected on “voters who move frequently.” Id.
109. Nancy Bedell, a former Kent County Deputy Clerk and MERA member, noted she “spent more than half of [her] time educating people on the . . . intricacies of election law.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 1 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Nancy Bedell, Michigan Election Reform Alliance).
110. In Bedell’s experience, “Rogers’ Law . . . seems to discourage voting especially for young people who change residences often” and “[y]oung people told me they had avoided registering on campus when they learned they had to change their driver’s license address.” Id.
111. Bedell listed the barriers for college students to vote on campus, including that first-time voters who register by mail are not able to cast absentee ballots nor travel to their parents’ address to vote, and students wish to maintain
45

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.149 Page 46 of 79
their parents’ address because they are covered by their parents’ health or car insurance decline to register on campus. Id.
112. Although some members of the Michigan Legislature were openly hostile to the idea of students voting in their college communities, see Barton, supra (describing how, in 2007, “State Rep. Tom Pearce (R-Kent County) asked . . . students about the possibility of student voters altering local politics in a district where they will likely only live for a few years”), House Bill 4447 nevertheless passed the Michigan House on July 25, 2007, with 58 votes in favor and 50 against. All Democratic Representatives supported the bill and all but one Republican Representatives opposed it. Mich. H. Journal, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1118 (July 25, 2007).
113. From there, House Bill 4447 was received in the Senate and was referred to the Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee, where it languished.
114. In 2009, Representative Warren again introduced legislation, House Bill 4373, to repeal Rogers’ Law. Similar appeals by non-partisan nonprofit organizations concerning the harms resulting from Rogers’ Law were submitted to the Legislature for its consideration.
115. The Director of Advocacy and Education at Ann Arbor’s Center for Independent Living submitted a written statement regarding the effects Rogers’
46

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.150 Page 47 of 79
Law has had on those with transient living conditions, particularly “students in Universities from 2-8 years.” The organization described how Rogers’ Law “has been a huge barrier for people who have multiple or no address(es) to be more civically engaged.” Letter from Carolyn L. Grawi, Director of Advocacy and Education, to Michigan House of Representatives (Dec. 1, 2009) (emphasis in original). The 2009 repeal effort, however, failed.
116. In 2012, Warren, by then a State Senator, attempted to introduce another repeal of Rogers’ Law through an amendment to Senate Bill 823, a bill that sought to impose additional election restrictions on the procedure governing statewide ballot initiatives, among other new requirements. Despite unanimous Democratic support, the amendment failed, with 25 out of 26 Republican State Senators voting against it.
117. In 2017, State Senators Warren, Steve Bieda, and Curtis Hertel introduced Senate Bill 506, a third piece of legislation to repeal Rogers’ Law.22
22 Like House Bill 4447 introduced by then-Representative Warren in 2007, Senate Bill 506 would have provided that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, an individual may change the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffer’s license issued under the Michigan vehicle code . . . or official state personal identification card . . . , without changing his or her address for purposes of the qualified voter file or may change his or her address on the qualified voter file without changing the residence address on his or her operator’s or chauffeur’s license issued under the Michigan Vehicle Code . . . or official state personal identification card . . . .”
47

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.151 Page 48 of 79
However, like earlier attempts, this one also failed, never making it out of committee.
118. Many Republican Michigan legislators voiced hostility to the repeal effort, with Republican State Senator Dave Robertson, who previously voted against Senator Warren’s 2012 amendment, arguing that, “[t]he logic behind [Rogers’ Law] is very clear: [v]oters should have only one legal address for voting purposes.” Patricia Lesko, Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Vote? The Michigan GOP, HUFFINGTON POST (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricialesko/michigan-voting-legislation_b_1276999.html. The requirement that voters may only claim one residence for voting purposes, however, exists independent of Rogers’ Law and carries with it the threat of imprisonment and hefty fines. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.932a(d) (making it a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to four years or a fine of up to $2,000, or both, to, inter alia, “offer to vote or attempt to vote in a voting precinct in which the elector does not reside” or “offer to vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election either in the same or in another voting precinct”).
119. Senate Bill 506 was referred to the Senate Elections and Government Reform Committee on July 12, 2017. The legislative session ended with no further action being taken.
48

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.152 Page 49 of 79
VIII. Confusion Regarding Rogers’ Law Continues Unabated 120. It is now clear that, in the years since Rogers’ Law was enacted, and
directly as a result of that law, Michigan’s young voters, and particularly, college students, have faced significant obstacles—including widespread confusion—to registering and voting in Michigan’s elections. See Justin Jackson, Did You Forget Something, FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY TORCH (Sept. 17, 2008), https://www.fsutorch.com/archives/archive/2008_09_17_opinions.html (“[T]hanks to Public Act 118 of 1999 (also known as ‘Rogers Law’), registering away from home can lead to a lot of confusion for many student voters.”) (emphasis added); ACLU of Michigan Fall Newsletter (Fall 2008), http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2008fallnewsletter.pdf (“In past elections, the law has created much confusion for students across the state— including Michigan State University students in Mike Rogers’ district.”) (emphasis added); Philip Moon, supra (“Registering in East Lansing meant that [students] would have to change their permanent address on their driver’s license, a hurdle of time and confusion that would help disenfranchise some.”) (emphasis added).
121. One of the common misconceptions stemming from Rogers’ Law that has effectively suppressed student registration and voting is the belief, held by many Michigan college student voters, that if they change their driver’s license
49

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.153 Page 50 of 79
address, they risk losing their healthcare, which they often maintain through their parents at their parents’ home addresses See Barton, supra.
122. The right to vote under Michigan law is plainly not linked to the address at which a person’s health insurance is maintained, and if the Legislature were to pass such a law—essentially requiring its young people in many cases to choose between ensuring that they are able to afford medical care or exercising the right to vote—such a law would clearly be unconstitutional.
123. Yet, through Rogers’ Law, the Legislature has effectively promoted the belief among young voters that they must make precisely such a choice. It is thus unsurprising that, since the enactment of Rogers’ Law young voter registration and participation has fallen precipitously to among the lowest rates in the country.
124. Confusion stemming from such rumors has continued unabated to the present day, and incorrect or highly misleading statements by government and public university officials about Rogers’ Law have exacerbated voter confusion.
125. For example, Michigan State University’s official 2008 YouVote Guide stated that “[s]tate law requires that the driver’s license record address match the one on your voter registration card in order to cast your ballot.” It continued, in responding to the question that “My Roommate Told me That my Insurance Rates Could Change if I Make East Lansing my Voting Address. Is this
50

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.154 Page 51 of 79
true?,” that students are advised to “contact your insurance carrier prior to changing your address with the Secretary of State or City Clerk.”
126. That same year, the Michigan Student Assembly (of the University of Michigan) described Rogers’ Law as “mandat[ing] that students vote in the district that is on their driver’s license [which] prevents many students from voting on campus.” Michigan Student Assembly, Regents’ Report (Feb. 2008), http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/02-08/2008-2-II-8.pdf (emphasis added). The student government continued: “[a]nd so students cannot vote in the district that they live in and who’s [sic] law they are subject to for more than 8 months of the year.” Id.
127. To date, Michigan election officials continue to foster misinformation about Rogers’ Law.
128. For example, the 2016 Davison Township’s official Voting Tips for College Students, which as of the date of this filing still appears on the township’s website, incorrectly states:
There are several things to consider in making your decision regarding your principal residence:
• Residency requirements for various colleges and universities follow rules set down by those institutions so be aware that your residence can determine how much tuition you will pay.
• Health insurance may require that you reside with your parents if you are covered under their policy.
• Your residence may also determine automobile insurance rates.
51

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.155 Page 52 of 79
Voting Tips for College Students, Davison Township (2016), http://www.davisontwp-mi.org/assets/voting_tips_college_students_2016.pdf (emphasis added).
129. The Richfield Township Voting Tips for College Students does the same. http://www.richfieldtwp.org/Portals/1094/docs/VOTING%20TIPS%20FOR%20C OLLEGE%20STUDENTS.pdf (last accessed Aug. 7, 2018) (listing the above false considerations for students’ decisions regarding principal residence and warning students that they must “identify your ‘principal residence’ in the state”).
130. These township voting tips stand in contrast to the information published by the Undergraduate Student Government of Michigan Technological University, which accurately describes the “lie[s] that prevent[] students from voting,” including that changing your driver’s license address to reflect your college address will impact “your dependency status, financial aid, or any insurance policy.” Mich. Technological Univ. Undergraduate Student Government, Voter Registration Frequently Asked Questions, http://usg.mtu.edu/usg/votefaq (last accessed Aug. 7, 2018).
131. Upon information and belief, Defendants have taken no action to counteract this rampant misinformation and ensure that student voters are properly informed of their right to vote in the communities in which they reside.
52

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.156 Page 53 of 79
132. To the contrary, Defendant Secretary has been among those actively spreading false information tied to Rogers’ Law, further confusing student voters as to their voting rights.
133. Most recently, in a March 2018 presentation to a group of students at Kappa Omega Alpha at Michigan State University, the Defendant Secretary told students living on or near the university that their school address is not really their home, and therefore, it would not be “fair” for students to register to vote at their campus address.
134. She went on to say that if students do choose to register to vote using their campus address, they must first obtain a completely new driver’s license or state identification listing that campus address.
135. Though neither of those statements comport with Michigan law, they comport entirely with the misleading and disenfranchising intent and resulting impact of Rogers’ Law.
136. On April 20, 2018, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to the Secretary, requesting that she confirm the correct understanding of Michigan law and institute a plan to resolve the widespread confusion around student voting and student voter registration in Michigan. The Secretary did not respond to counsel’s request.
53

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.157 Page 54 of 79
137. Confusion about exactly what Rogers’ Law requires and how it interacts with the right to vote is so wide-spread that the press also repeatedly and regularly furthers the confusion, making it all the more likely that students are in fact choosing not to register because of the existence of the law.
138. Last year, for example, the Huffington Post reported: “if your license has your Detroit address, but you attend Michigan State University, you’re still required by law to vote in Detroit,” and noted “[s]ince the primary is on a Tuesday, it’s safe to say most students won’t be home to vote.” Susan Demas, Could Michigan’s Restrictive Student Voter Law Hurt Bernie Sanders, HUFFINGTON POST (Feb. 16, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-j-demas/could-michigansrestrictive-student-voter-law-hurt-bernie-sanders_b_9237796.html.
139. The article’s misstatement of Rogers’ Law’s requirements and operation is not the only reflection of widespread confusion regarding the law, as the article itself reports that “many MSU students in the district discovered they couldn’t vote on campus” due to what was likely election officials’ misapplication of Rogers’ Law. Id. IX. Rogers’ Law Continues to Burden and Abridge the Right to Vote of
Young People, Especially College Students 140. The cloud of confusion resulting from Rogers’ Law has led to the burdening and even outright denial of college students’ right to vote over the last 18 years and will continue to do so, unless the requirement is enjoined. See Susan
54

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.158 Page 55 of 79
Demas, supra (“[M]any MSU students in the district discovered they couldn’t vote on campus.”); Philip Moon, supra (“And the group [Mike Rogers] successfully disenfranchised was the young voters at Michigan State University, which is located in his district, and every other residential college and university in Michigan.”); see also Patricia Lesko, supra (“[Rogers’ Law] made it harder for college students to vote.”) (emphasis added); Gumbrecht, supra (“[S]ome students. . . offer a cold stare to registration drive workers” due to Rogers’ Law); id. (One student voter stated that “[i]t’s just a messed-up bureaucracy,” and “I realize now why so many people don’t [vote]”).
141. As a result of Rogers’ Law, there have been instances of college students being turned away from the polls as recently as in the 2016 election simply because the address on their driver’s license did not match their voter registration address. See Zach Robertson, Slices of life from East Lansing elections, SPARTAN NEWSROOM (Nov. 8, 2016), http://news.jrn.msu.edu/2016/11/slices-oflife-from-east-lansing-elections/ (describing attempt by election official to prohibit a Michigan State University student from voting in East Lansing “because [her] driver’s license ha[d her] home town as [her] address on it”); see also Fix the System, supra (stating that in the first election in which Rogers’ Law was implemented, “many students were unaware of the law until they were turned away from the East Lansing polls on Election Day”) (emphasis added).
55

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.159 Page 56 of 79
142. Additionally, college students have been disenfranchised by administrative error stemming from Rogers’ Law. As discussed above, a Michigan State University Professor testified to the Michigan Legislature that “[t]he current law creates an opportunity for administrative error that can easily lead to a voter being improperly disenfranchised.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 2 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Philip Shepard, Michigan Election Reform Alliance).
143. Confusion regarding Rogers’ Law has deterred some students from registering to vote at all or from registering to vote in their college town. As discussed above, a Deputy Clerk testified that based on her experience, “Rogers’ Law … seems to discourage voting especially for young people who change residences often,” as “they had avoided registering on campus when they learned they had to change their driver’s license address.” H.B. 4447 and H.B. 4448: Hearing Before the Michigan House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ethics and Elections, 94th Mich. Leg. 1 (May 15, 2007) (Testimony of Nancy Bedell, Michigan Election Reform Alliance) (emphasis added). In particular, she “[p]oint[ed] to the complexity of [Rogers’ Law],” which, in the end, “discourage[s] voting” and results in lower voter turnout among students. Id.
56

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.160 Page 57 of 79
144. Further, the significant civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance with the address reporting requirements associated with Rogers’ Law also impose significant risk of intimidating and deterring college students from registering and/or voting at their campus address when confronted with uncertain or conflicting information about the law’s requirements. Indeed, failure to report an address change or respond to a notice from the secretary could result in immediate suspension or revocation of one’s driver license. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(3). And an individual who “knowingly report[s] a change of address to the secretary of state for himself or herself that is not his or her residence address” is a misdemeanor, “punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of $1,000.00, or both.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.315(4). These stiff penalties relate to behavior—reporting address changes and responding to notices—that have nothing to do with eligibility for voting, but that could very well have a chilling effect leading to disenfranchisement, particularly given the widespread confusion over what is the appropriate residence address to list.
145. Rogers’ Law is particularly devastating to young voters because of unique characteristics that make them especially vulnerable to disenfranchisement as a result of restrictive or confusing elections laws. For example, young voters face steeper information costs and are less likely to know where to vote and how Michigan’s voting process works in general. Further, because young voters are
57

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.161 Page 58 of 79
more likely to be first time voters, they are more likely to be discouraged by barriers to entry. They are also less likely to be contacted by political campaigns or other political groups that could help educate them on the relevant voting process, because they are not on the lists generated from prior vote histories. Young voters are additionally more likely to receive information from unreliable sources, such as social media, regarding voting. Finally, young voters sometimes feel that their vote is not welcome, or they let their fear of making a voting mistake outweigh the benefits of voting. See Eric Plutzer, Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood, 96 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 41, 41-56 (2002) (noting that voter turnout rates increase with age due, in part, to barriers to entry that lessen once voting becomes a habit and gains “inertia”). X. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement Facially Discriminates Against
Young People and Interacts with Rogers’ Law to Further Burden and Abridge Young Peoples’ Right to Vote 146. Rogers’ Law also interacts with other unnecessarily restrictive voting laws in Michigan, and particularly, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement to the marked and particular detriment of Michigan’s youngest voters. 147. Although on its face, Michigan law permits voters who will be absent from their jurisdiction on Election Day to request and vote an absentee ballot, see MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.759, because of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, absentee voting is not available for many young voters who are registering for the
58

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.162 Page 59 of 79
first time, even if they have followed the advice of the Defendant Secretary and the clear intent of Rogers’ Law, and maintain their voter registration and driver’s license address at their family’s home address, while attending school elsewhere.
148. This is because, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement mandates that “[a] person who registers to vote in a jurisdiction in this state by mail shall vote in person and shall provide identification if that person has not previously voted in person in this state.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2) (emphasis added).
149. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement applies not only to those who register to vote by mail, but also to those who register through a non-governmental voter registration drive or by submitting their application to university officials.23
150. Thus, first-time voters who register to vote by mail, or through thirdparty voter registration drive—such as the type regularly conducted on campuses in order to ensure that students, who are often becoming eligible to vote for the first time as a result of turning 18, are properly registered to vote—that then mail in or deliver the voters’ registration application to election officials, are prohibited under Michigan law from requesting an absentee ballot for their first election and are prohibited from voting at all unless they are able to travel to the precinct to
23 See Mich. Bureau of Elecs., Election Officials’ Manual at 8 (Jan. 2017), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/II_Voter_Registration_265983_7.pdf at 7-8 (“The absentee voting restriction applies if the mail-in voter registration application form is delivered to the clerk’s office by a third party.”).
59

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.163 Page 60 of 79
which they are assigned, on the basis of their voter registration, on Election Day, to cast their ballot in person while the polls are open.
151. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement expressly does not apply to registered voters who are 60 years of age or older, those who have “a disability as defined in section 103 of the persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1103,” those entitled to vote absentee “under the uniformed and overseas citizens absentee voting act, or those “entitled to vote other than in person under any other federal law.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2)(a)-(c). Thus, on its face, it treats Michigan voters differently on account of age.
152. The current version of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement purports to be required by Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), 42 U.C.S § 15483. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2). As discussed below, this is not, in fact, the case.
153. Nevertheless, Michigan’s lawmakers affirmatively chose to put in place and maintain a strict, in-person voting requirement that predictably and in many cases imposes serious burdens on young voters, who are significantly more likely than the rest of the voting public to be first-time voters, while at the same time substantially less likely to have the information, transportation, or time to register in-person.
60

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.164 Page 61 of 79
154. Indeed, when the current version of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement was being considered in the legislature, Democratic State Senator Gilda Jacobs drew a direct connection between the provision and Rogers’ Law: they were both attempts to disenfranchise a group of voters, namely college students. Senator Jacobs stated during legislative debate: “We have seen that in this legislature before[—b]ack recently when a decision was made to make sure that college kids could not vote in a location where they lived, and we know that many college aged kids went to the polls near their schools only to be turned back. . .” Michigan Senate Journal, 2004 Reg. Sess. No. 33. Senator Jacobs further noted that the “bill contains critical errors regarding first-time voters who are supposed to be allowed to register and vote by mail” and “simply does not help people vote, which is our most precious right, and I, therefore, urge its defeat.” Id.
155. Nonetheless, the provision passed, and Michigan now prohibits voters under 60 who register for the first time by mail or a third person registration drive from voting, unless they appear in person on Election Day to cast their ballot or otherwise verify their identity in-person before Election Day.
156. None of the narrow exceptions provided for in the law alleviate the severe burdens that it imposes on young voters as a group, including specifically college students, who are likely to register by mail or through a registration drive, while at the same time are less likely to have reliable access to transportation, or
61

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.165 Page 62 of 79
the flexibility or other resources to enable them to travel to the polls on Election Day.
157. For the many young, first-time voters who are understandably confused by the requirements and intimidating penalties associated with Rogers’ Law, and who thus believe they cannot register to vote on campus but must instead use their family home address for voter registration purposes, the First-Time/InPerson Requirement’s prohibition on absentee voting results in their complete disenfranchisement if—for a myriad of reasons beyond their control, including lack of access to reliable transportation and busy, inflexible schedules—they are unable to travel home to vote in-person on Election Day—a Tuesday in the middle of November, in the middle of the academic semester.
158. Indeed, young voters in Michigan vote at very low rates—the difference between overall turnout and youth turnout is now larger in Michigan than in any other state. And young voters do not make up for their low rates of inperson voting by casting absentee ballots. Instead, as a consequence of Michigan’s restrictive voting rules, and in particular, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, absentee voting is infrequently used by young voters. XI. The State Does Not Have Any Legitimate, Much Less Compelling
Interest, in Upholding Rogers’ Law 159. The proponents of Rogers’ Law have asserted three justifications for the statute: (1) it implements the NVRA; (2) it reduces complexity and expense for
62

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.166 Page 63 of 79
government offices by reducing two addresses to one address; and (3) it protects against voter fraud. However, all three of these alleged justifications are pretexts, and none are sufficient to justify the burdens on the fundamental right to vote imposed by law even under a rational basis standard, much less compelling interests that are narrowly tailored to address those interests.
160. There is nothing in the NVRA that requires a voter’s driver’s license address to match her voter registration address. See NVRA, 107 Stat. 77, 79. To the contrary, the NVRA specifically allows an individual to maintain a driver’s license address different from her voter registration address. See id. at § 5(d) (“Any change of address form . . . for purposes of a State motor vehicle driver’s license shall serve as notification of change of address for voter registration . . . unless the registrant states on the form that the change of address is not for voter registration purposes.”) (emphasis added); see also Statement of Rep. Martinez, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 40 (stating that the NVRA “did not determine that the Secretary would decide that there was only one address available to a person”). Indeed, many states do not have the same requirement.
161. Further, the idea that Rogers’ Law reduces complexity and expense for government offices by reducing the driver’s license address and voter registration address to one address is simply not true. As was recognized by the Fiscal Implications of the House Legislative Analysis, drafted by nonpartisan
63

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.167 Page 64 of 79
Michigan House of Representatives staff, Rogers’ Law in fact results in an “increase[] in administrative costs due to the additional requirements imposed.” Senate Bill 306, Driver License/Voter Address, House Legislative Analysis Section (May 5, 1999) (emphasis added). Consistent with this, several local election administrators have publicly opposed Rogers’ Law, both at the time it was being considered by the Legislature, and in the years since, on several grounds, including the added administrative burden.
162. In addition, the argument that it is too administratively burdensome for elections officials to maintain two different address for one individual—an address for a driver’s license and another address for a voter’s registration form— is undercut by the fact that even under Rogers’ Law, elections administrators must still keep track of multiple addresses: (1) the driver’s license/voter registration address, which must be the same; and (2) a mailing address, which may differ.
163. Indeed, this very point was made when the Legislature was considering the law in 1999, by Representative Brater who pointed out, during the floor debate, that: “[t]he previous excuses that the Secretary of State has used - that you couldn’t get an additional field in the [Qualified Voter File] software has been shown to be false by adding the ability to add a field for mailing address. So that cannot possibly be the reason.” Statement of Rep. Brater, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 23.
64

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.168 Page 65 of 79
164. Further, since Rogers’ Law was enacted, new technology has been developed to make it even easier to allow a voter to maintain a driver’s license address that is different from her address for voter registration purposes. See Patricia Lesko, Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Vote? The Michigan GOP, Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-lesko/michiganvoting-legislation_b_1276999.html (“[T]here’s now [new] technology to allow two addresses”).
165. Finally, preventing voter fraud does not justify Rogers’ Law, as there was no evidence that any voter fraud problem existed when the law was passed. Representative Schauer, for example, stated that Rogers’ Law “is veiled in the motive of voter fraud,” despite the fact that “there is no evidence of voter fraud. Statement of Rep. Schauer, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 15. Representative Brater also stated: “[t]here is no evidence of fraud in the State of Michigan, so that cannot be the reason” for the legislation. Statement of Rep. Brater, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 23; see also Statement of Rep. Dennis, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 26 (“[T]his isn’t about voter fraud.”); Statement of Rep. Gieleghem, Mich. House of Representatives, June 2, 1999 Tr. at 13.
166. Nor is there any evidence that voter fraud of any kind has become a legitimate problem in Michigan since the passage of Rogers’ Law. See Mich.
65

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.169 Page 66 of 79
Bureau of Elecs. Rep. (2016) (concluding that an audit “found no evidence of pervasive voter fraud” in the state of Michigan).
167. Further, the requirement that voters may claim only one residence for voting purposes exists independent of Rogers’ Law and carries its own hefty penalties. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.932a(d) (making it a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to four years or a fine of up to $2,000, or both, to, inter alia, “offer to vote or attempt to vote in a voting precinct in which the elector does not reside” or “offer to vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election either in the same or in another voting precinct”).
168. Michigan’s election laws also independently require that voters reregister to vote whenever they move to a new city or township and update their address if they move within a city or township. MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 168.506; 168.507; 168.507a; 168.507b.
169. The assertion that allowing voters to have a driver’s license address that is different from a voter registration address in the Qualified Voter File makes fraud more likely is further undercut by Rogers’ Law itself, which allows for two different addresses of an individual, a driver’s license/voter registration address and a different mailing address, as discussed above.
170. Further, as a practical matter, alerting the State to the two addresses, with which a Michigander associates for the purposes of a driver’s license and
66

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.170 Page 67 of 79
voter registration, is, in fact, more transparent and provides the state with more complete information about its citizens. XII. The State Does Not Have Any Legitimate, Much Less Compelling,
Interest in Upholding the First-Time/In-Person Requirement 171. Similarly, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement is not in fact justified by the purported state interests that support it, including the claim that it is required to implement the NVRA, nor the later justification that it implements the Help America Voter Act (“HAVA”), nor any other state interest, such as preventing voter fraud. See Michigan House Legislative Analysis of Motor/Voter Implementation, House Bill 5531, House Legislative Analysis Section (June 9, 1994), http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1uzqsbttzhx2zx01d341eytf))/documents/19931994/billanalysis/House/pdf/1993-HLA-5529-A.pdf (describing that House Bill 5531, along with others, “would, in part, incorporate into state voter registration laws provisions of the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993”); see also MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2) (“A person who registered to vote in a jurisdiction in this state by mail shall vote in person and shall provide identification as required under section 303(b) of the help America vote act of 2002 [sic]. . . if that person has not previously voted in person in this state.”); Michigan Senate Journal, 2004 Reg. Sess. No. 39, Message to the Senate from Governor Granholm regarding her signing of S.B. 432 (describing the First-Time/In-Person
67

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.171 Page 68 of 79
Requirement as helping “in part to amend Michigan law to comply with federal mandates under [HAVA]”).
172. The NVRA does not, in fact, require states to mandate that voters can only vote in-person if they registered to vote by mail. See 52 U.S.C. § 20505(c).
173. Similarly, the legislative history of the First-Time/In-Person
Requirement belies the purported justification that it was required by HAVA. Multiple legislators voiced concerns that, not only was the Requirement not required by HAVA, but was also not in the spirit of HAVA, and that the portion of the law that became MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2), specifically, would
disproportionately and negatively impact young voters—particularly, college student voters.
174. Though Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the bill that created the
current requirement into law (which contained other provisions purportedly designed to bring Michigan into HAVA compliance not at issue here), she noted her reservations in a message to the Senate:
Subject to limited exceptions, Senate Bill 432 would continue to require first-time voters registering to vote by mail to appear in person at the polls and present identification in order to vote, even when the identity of the voter was verified before the election. Continuing this requirement is especially burdensome for Michigan college students living away from home. Section 303 of HAVA provides mechanisms to verify the identity of first-time voters prior to an election, avoiding the requirement that a first-time voter appear in person at the
68

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.172 Page 69 of 79
polls, and instead allowing the verified voter to cast an absentee ballot. Michigan law should be amended to take advantage of these alternative verification mechanisms afforded by HAVA to encourage greater voter participation while maintaining the integrity of the election process. Making it difficult for first-time voters to cast a ballot is not consistent with the spirit of HAVA. Michigan law should encourage first-time voters to participate in the electoral process, and should not impose unnecessary obstacles.
Michigan Senate Journal, 2004 Reg. Sess. No. 39, Governor’s Remarks upon
Signing SB 432 into Law (emphasis added).
175. The Michigan Voter Registration Application provides further
evidence that the alleged justification of implementing HAVA was pretext. It
explicitly asserts that the federal voter registration by mail identification
requirement is distinct from, and required in addition to, the First-Time/In-Person
Requirement’s requirements.24
176. The Voter Registration Application therefore requires that voters who
register by mail provide either a copy of the various forms of primary or secondary
24 Compare MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.509t(2) (“A person who registered to vote in a jurisdiction in this state by mail shall vote in person and shall provide identification as required under section 303(b) of the help America vote act of 2002 [sic]. . . if that person has not previously voted in person in this state.”), with State of Michigan, State of Michigan Voter Registration Application (Rev. 7-15), https://www.michigan.gov/documents/MIVoter Registration_97046_7.pdf (“Are you registering to vote in Michigan for the first time? If you have never voted in Michigan and choose to submit this form by mail, you must meet two requirements: a Michigan requirement and a federal requirement, as explained below.”).
69

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.173 Page 70 of 79
identification as required by HAVA Section 303(b), or their Michigan-issued driver’s license or state identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number, and that, despite having to provide this identifying information, the voter must nevertheless vote in-person in their first Michigan election, unless the voter is over 60 years old, disabled, or a UOCAVA voter. Id. This renders the in-person voting requirement of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement particularly bizarre, as it applies even if the voter has already verified his or her identification.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Denial or Abridgement of the Right to Vote on Account of Age in Violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. XXVI;
42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 177. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 178. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in relevant part: “[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by . . . any State on account of age.” (emphasis added). 179. The goal of the Amendment “was not merely to empower voting by our youths but was affirmatively to encourage their voting, through the elimination of unnecessary burdens and barriers, so that their vigor and idealism could be
70

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.174 Page 71 of 79
brought within rather than remain outside lawfully constituted institutions.” Worden v. Mercer Cty. Bd. of Elections, 294 A.2d 233, 243 (N.J. Sup. 1972).
180. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment thus, by its plan text and history, guarantees qualified young voters a substantive right to participate equally with other qualified voters in the electoral process.
181. Election laws, practices and procedures that have the purpose, at least in part, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of age are unconstitutional. See League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (holding interpretation of early voting statute to exclude only college campuses as early voting locations violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment).
182. Moreover, the Amendment (and its protections) has been recognized to have “particular relevance for the college youth who comprise approximately 50 per cent of all who were enfranchised by this amendment.” Walgren v. Howes, 482 F.2d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 1973) (citing 117 Cong. Rec. 5817, 5825).
183. In a Twenty-Sixth Amendment analysis, “[t]he impact of the official action—whether it ‘bears more heavily on one [age-group] than another,’ . . . may provide an important starting point.” Id. (citing Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977) (quoting Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976)). Further, “[s]ometimes a clear pattern, unexplainable on
71

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.175 Page 72 of 79
grounds other than [age] emerges from the effect of the state action even when the governing legislation appears neutral on its face.” Id.
184. Rogers’ Law is unexplainable on grounds other than age discrimination, and it targets Michigan’s young voters to a significantly greater degree than the rest of Michigan’s voting population.
185. Further, as is reflected in its legislative history, Rogers’ Law was enacted with the intent, at least in part, to suppress the vote of young voters in Michigan. The burdens imposed on the right to vote cannot be justified by any legitimate, much less compelling state interest; nor is Rogers’ Law narrowly tailored to further any such interests. As such, it violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
186. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement, on its face, treats eligible voters who are under 60 years of age differently from eligible voters who are 60 years of age or older. This differential treatment unfairly and facially discriminates against Michigan’s young voters—who are more likely to be first-time voters and, because many are attending school away from their hometown where they are registered to vote, more likely to need to vote absentee. This facially disparate treatment of voters on the basis of age, and the fact that legislators were aware of the requirement’s disparate impact on young voters, constitute evidence of discriminatory intent.
72

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.176 Page 73 of 79
187. The burdens imposed by the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, particularly as it interacts with Rogers’ Law, are likely to be insurmountable for many young voters who are registered to vote at their family’s home address, but attending school hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away, which is precisely the result intended and caused by Rogers’ Law, and promoted by the Defendant Secretary.
188. Not only is the legislature presumed to be aware of the current legal regime when it enacts a law, and to anticipate the natural consequences of a law’s enactment, in this case, the legislative record makes clear that the legislature was on actual notice of the detrimental impact this provision would have on young people’s voting rights, particularly in interaction with Rogers’ Law.
189. Thus, it is clear that, as with Rogers’ Law, one of the motivating factors of the First-Time/In-Person Requirement was to make it more difficult for young people to exercise their fundamental right to vote in Michigan elections.
190. The First-Time/In-Person Requirement’s disparate treatment of young voters has resulted in a denial and abridgment of the right to vote on account of age that cannot be justified by any rational, much less compelling, state interest; nor is it narrowly tailored to further any such interests. Thus, the First-Time/In-Person Requirement violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
73

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.177 Page 74 of 79
191. Injunctive and declaratory relief is needed to resolve this existing dispute, which presents an actual controversy between Defendants and Plaintiffs, who have adverse legal interests, because Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/InPerson Requirement subject Plaintiffs to serious and concrete injuries to their fundamental right to vote, including, most immediately, in the upcoming general election to be held on November 6, 2018.
192. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (i) declare that Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement violate the TwentySixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (ii) preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Secretary and the Director of the Bureau of Elections, their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from implementing, enforcing, or giving any effect to Rogers’ Law or the First-Time/In-Person Requirement.
COUNT II Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, U.S. Const. Amends. I and XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 193. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
74

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.178 Page 75 of 79
194. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment, a state cannot utilize election practices that unduly burden or abridge the right to vote.
195. Absent relief from this Court, Plaintiffs and countless other young Michigan voters, including, in particular, college students who make up Plaintiffs’ membership and core consistency, will be denied the opportunity to cast a ballot or will face significant burdens in doing so due as a direct result of Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement and the confusion that they cause.
196. The burdens imposed by Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, further, fall heaviest on Michigan’s young voters, who are also more likely to be first time voters and to be interacting with, and learning how to navigate, the elections process. This fact already imposes significant barriers to entry for young voters seeking to vote, which Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/InPerson requirement substantially exacerbates. See Eric Plutzer, supra.
197. In addition, college student voters are more likely to constantly change addresses and to seek to maintain two addresses. Rogers’ Law demonstrably discourages young people, in particular, from registering to vote and exercising their right to vote. And, under the First-Time/In-Person Requirement young, college-student voters registered at their family home and who are unable
75

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.179 Page 76 of 79
to return there to vote in-person on Election Day will be disenfranchised altogether.
198. In a case such as this, the Court must carefully balance the character and magnitude of injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiffs seek to vindicate against the justifications put forward by the State for the burdens imposed by the challenged provision. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). “However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.” Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008) (Stevens, J., controlling op.) (quotation marks omitted).
199. Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement, through the burdens and confusion they impose, violate the right to vote of Plaintiffs, their membership and constituencies. See Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding plaintiffs’ right to vote burdened because of voter confusion); Bryanton v. Johnson, 902 F. Supp. 2d 983, 995-996 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (recognizing that “likely confusion at the polls interferes with the right of all voters” to vote); Coalition for Educ. v. Bd. of Elecs., 370 F. Supp. 42, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (recognizing that “confusion undoubtedly denied some [] voters the right to an effective vote”); see also Guare v. State, 167 N.H. 658, 665
76

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.180 Page 77 of 79
(N.H. 2015) (“Because the challenged language [on the voter registration form] is confusing and inaccurate, and because, . . . it could cause an otherwise qualified voter not to register to vote in New Hampshire, we hold that, as a matter of law, the burden it imposes upon the fundamental right to vote [under the state constitution] is unreasonable.”); Canegata v. Schoenbaum, 64 V.I. 252, 256 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2016) (recognizing that confusion “would undoubtedly interfere with the rights of the voters and cause them to be disenfranchised—the confusion will likely negatively impact the turn-out”).
200. These burdens are not outweighed by any legitimate, much less compelling, state interest in the law.
201. Injunctive and declaratory relief are needed to resolve this existing dispute, which presents an actual controversy between the Secretary and Plaintiffs, who have adverse legal interests, because Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/InPerson Requirement subject Plaintiffs and their members to serious, concrete, and irreparable injuries to their fundamental right to vote, including, most immediately, in the upcoming general elections to be held on November 6, 2018.
202. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (i) declare that Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (ii) preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Secretary and the Director of the Bureau of Elections,
77

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.181 Page 78 of 79
their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting
in concert with each or any of them, from implementing, enforcing, or giving any
effect to Rogers’ Law or the First-Time/In-Person Requirement.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment:
a) declaring, under the authority granted to this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b) declaring under the authority granted to this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that Rogers’ Law and the First-Time/In-Person Requirement violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
c) preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Secretary and the Director of the Bureau of Elections, their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from implementing, enforcing, or giving any effect to Rogers’ Law or the First-Time/In-Person Requirement under the authority granted to this Court by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2202;
d) awarding Plaintiffs their costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws;
e) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated this 7th day of September, 2018.
78

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 12 filed 09/07/18 PageID.182 Page 79 of 79
Respectfully submitted,
Marc E. Elias Elisabeth C. Frost* Jacki L. Anderson PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Facsimile: (202) 654-9959 melias@perkinscoie.com efrost@perkinscoie.com jackianderson@perkinscoie.com
Sambo Dul* PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012Telephone: (602) 351-8000 Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 sdul@perkinscoie.com
Mark Totten (Mich. Bar No. P70268) MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW** 648 N. Shaw Lane East Lansing, MI 48824 Telephone: (517) 432-6935 mark.totten@law.msu.edu
Counsel for the Plaintiffs *Applications for admission to be submitted or pending **Institutional affiliation provided for
identification purposes only
79

 </s> Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.248 Page 2 of 61
September 6, 2018
College Democrats at the University of Michigan, et al. v. Johnson, et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Expert Report of Jonathan Rodden, PhD 737 Mayfield Avenue Stanford, CA 94305
Jonathan Rodden, PhD
1

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.249 Page 3 of 61
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
One of the most important impediments to voting in the United States is residential mobility. When individuals move-even a very short distance to a new apartment-they must change their voter registration to a new address. Each residential address is connected to a series of wards, districts, and towns, and election administrators must provide each voter with a ballot that displays exactly the right mixture of school board, county commissioner, and state legislative candidates. Thus, one's ability to vote, and have one's vote counted, depends on navigating a process of registering in the correct location and, if voting in person, finding the correct polling place.
This is all quite straightforward for a middle-aged home-owner living at the same address for decades. In contrast, for people who move often, voting can require frequent and active engagement with a multi-layered bureaucracy of city, county, and state officials. There is considerable variation across states and localities in the processes of registration, re-registration, and election-day address verification, and these have important implications for rates of registration and turnout. Such laws and practices can be especially important for registration and
2

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.250 Page 4 of 61
turnout rates among young voters who are more likely to change their residential addresses frequently. One of the most affected groups is college students, many of whom change their addresses every year.
I have been asked by plaintiffs1 counsel to examine the implications of two unusual aspects of Michigan1s system of election administration. First, Michigan Public Act 118 of 1999 specifies that anyone who wishes to register to vote at their current residential address, even if that address is a one-year dormitory or campus apartment, must change the permanent address on their driver1 s license or state identification card. This could deter college students from registering to vote at their campus address or changing their registration address to their campus address, since they know they will move repeatedly, and they or their parents may believe it to be advantageous to maintain an address in their hometown.
One solution to this dilemma might be to maintain one1 s family home address for voter registration purposes and, instead of skipping classes to travel home on election day, cast an absentee ballot. However, absentee balloting is not allowed in Michigan for new registrants if their registration was submitted by mail or through a third-party registration drive. In other words, first-time voters must vote in person unless they registered to vote at a Secretary of State branch office, Clerk1s offices, or a public assistance agency. Since Michigan is one of the few states
3

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.251 Page 5 of 61
that does not allow online registration, registration by mail and third-party voter registration drives are perhaps the most convenient registration options for young first-time registrants. Moreover, Michigan is one of only 13 states that has neither early voting nor a system of "no-excuse" absentee voting. 1
A possible combined effect of these two laws is that young voting-eligible individuals in Michigan will be deterred from registering to vote or updating their voter registration address upon moving to college, but then on election day, be unable to make it to the correct polling place that is associated with a faraway "home" address, and be unable to vote early or absentee. Alternatively, young people might simply register at lower rates in the first place due to this dilemma.
This report assesses the possibility that these two laws act in concert to reduce registration and voting rates among young Michiganders in general, and college students in particular. First, I examine the registration and voting rates of young people in Michigan relative to the rest of Michigan's voting-age population, and relative to other states. Second, I use data at the level of counties, census places, and precincts to explore whether young people-especially those who are concentrated on and around college campuses-exhibit lower rates of registration
1 http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
4

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.252 Page 6 of 61
and turnout than older Michiganders. Third, I examine the evolution of relative registration and voting rates among young people over time, and I examine whether the promulgation of the 1999 law requiring a single address for the drivers license and voter registration had a discernable impact on registration and voting among affected clusters of young people. Finally, I examine whether the use of absentee balloting is less common among young people.
My findings can be summarized as follow: 1. Voting-age citizens between the age of 18 and 24 vote at very low rates in
Michigan. In fact, the difference between overall turnout and youth turnout is now larger in Michigan than in any other state. 2. Michigan1 s "youth turnout gap11 had been lower than the national average before the promulgation of Public Act 118, but it surpassed the national average immediately thereafter, and has grown in subsequent elections. 3. Electoral participation and registration rates are extremely low in the vicinity of Michigan1 s colleges and universities. 4. Since the implementation of Public Act 118, registration rates have grown more slowly in counties with large youth populations-especially those with universities-than in other counties. In fact, in the decade since the law was introduced, registration rates have fallen over time or stagnated in several
5

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.253 Page 7 of 61
college counties while increasing in most of the rest of the state. The largest registration decline in the state was in Ingham County, home to Michigan State University. 5. Within counties, college towns experienced declining electoral participation relative to their surrounding communities in the elections since Public Act 118 came into effect. 6. Precinct-level analysis of registration and voting before and after the 1999 reform reveals a large initial impact on registration and voting in college areas- one that has persisted or even increased over time. 7. Young voters do not make up for their low rates of residence-based registration and in-person voting by casting absentee ballots at higher rates. On the contrary, as encouraged by Michigan's election laws and practices, absentee voting is infrequently used by young voters, and used extensively by Michigan voters over the age of 60. 8. Young people are disproportionately affected by the law requiring new registrants to vote in-person if their registration was by mail or through a third-party registration drive because they are likely to register through those means and they are much more likely to be be first-time voters. Absentee voting is especially rare among young new registrants.
6

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.254 Page 8 of 61
II. QUALIFICATIONS
I am currently a tenured Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and the founder and director of the Stanford Spatial Social Science Lab ("the Lab")-a center for research and teaching with a focus on the analysis of geo-spatial data in the social sciences. Students and faculty members affiliated with the Lab are engaged in a variety of research projects involving large, fine-grained geospatial data sets including individual records of registered voters, Census data, survey responses, and election results at the level of polling places. Prior to my employment at Stanford, I was the Ford Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I received my Ph.D. from Yale University and my B.A. from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, both in political science. A copy of my current C.V. is included as Appendix A.
In my current academic work, I conduct research on the relationship between the geographic location of demographic and partisan groups, the drawing of electoral districts, and patterns of political representation. I have published papers using statistical methods to assess political geography and representation in a variety of academic journals including Proceedings of the National Academy of
7

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.255 Page 9 of 61
Science, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, the Journal of Economic Perspectives, the Virginia Law Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the British Journal of Political Science, the Annual Review of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics. One of these papers was recently selected by the American Political Science Association as the winner of the Michael Wallerstein Award for the best paper on political economy published in the last year.
I have recently written a series of papers, along with my co-author, Jowei Chen, using automated redistricting algorithms to assess partisan gerrymandering. This work has been published in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science and Election Law Journal, and it has been featured in more popular publications like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Boston Review. I am currently writing a book, to be published by Basic Books in 2019, on the relationship between political districts, the residential geography of social groups, and their political representation in the United States and other countries that use winner-take-all electoral districts.
I have expertise in the use of large data sets and geographic information systems (GIS), and do research and teaching in the area of applied statistics. My PhD students frequently take academic and private sector jobs as statisticians and data scientists. I frequently work with geo-coded voter files and other large
8

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.256 Page 10 of 61
administrative data sets, including in a recent paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. I have developed a national data set of geo-coded precinct-level election results that has been used extensively in policy-oriented research related to redistricting and representation,2 as well as with Census data from the United States and other countries.
I have been accepted and testified as an expert witness in six recent election law cases: Romo v. Detzner~ No. 2012-CA-000412 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2012); Mo. State Conference of the NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist.~ No. 4:2014-CV-02077 (E.D. Mo. 2014); Lee v. Va. State Bd. of Elections~ No. 3:15-CV-00357 (E.D. Va. 2015); Arizona Democratic Party~ et al. v. Michele Reagan~ et al. (No. 16-1065-PHX-DLR); Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections; and the League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner (No. 4:18-cv-002510). I also worked with a coalition of academics to file an Amicus Brief in Gil/ v. Whitford. Much of the testimony in these cases had to do with geography and election administration. I am being compensated at the rate of $500/hour for my work in this case.
2 The dataset can be downloaded at http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/eda/home. The data can be visualized in an interactive web map, available at http://atlas.esri.com/Atlas/VoterAtlas.html.
9

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.257 Page 11 of 61
Ill. DATA SOURCES
This report draws on data from a number of sources. First, I use data on voting and registration assembled by the United States Census Department in its November Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration Supplements from 1996 to 2016. Second, I use data on population by age and residential status at the level of census blocks, counties, and census places from the United States decennial census. These data are disseminated by the National Historical GIS (nhgis.org), which also provides associated gee-spatial boundaries. From the same source, I also assembled gee-spatial boundaries of vote tabulation districts (precincts) submitted by the state of Michigan to the United States Census Department in 2000 and 2010.
I consulted precinct-level election results from the Michigan Secretary of State from 1998 to 2014, as well as election results compiled by several county and city governments and published on their web pages. I also consulted historical precinct boundary maps and descriptions of precinct boundaries published by county and city governments on their web pages.
10

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.258 Page 12 of 61
I also consulted reports by a group of researchers at Tufts University on student voting behavior at various universities. This research project is called the National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLIVE), and I consulted reports on the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the University of Minnesota. Additionally, I consulted data from the Michigan Department of Education on college attendance among students graduating from Michigan high schools.
Finally, I consulted a recent individual-level Michigan voter file, and a corresponding vote history file, that I received from counsel. I understand that these files comprise of raw data obtained from the Michigan Secretary of State's office through a public records request.
IV. AGE AND VOTING: MICHIGAN IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Young people have participated in elections at lower rates than the rest of the American population for decades.3 The United States Census Bureau collects data on registration and turnout in the November supplement to the Current Population Survey after each presidential and mid-term election. The Census
3 United States Census Bureau, Young Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 19642012, (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Commerce).
11

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.259 Page 13 of 61

Bureau estimates that 61.4 percent of voting-age citizens participated in the November 2014 general election. But the estimate for those between the age of 18 and 24 is only 43 percent. Let us refer to the difference between overall citizen turnout and the turnout among young citizens as the "youth turnout gap." In 2016, the gap was 18.4 percentage points for the United States as a whole. But in the state of Michigan, the youth turnout gap was far higher: 26.5 percentage points. Overall turnout in Michigan was estimated at 64.3 percent, but turnout among the 18 to 24 population was only 37.8 percent.
Figure 1: State-by-state youth turnout gap, November 2016 election

KENTUCKY VIRGINIA
PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO NEBRASKA MINNESOTA ALABAMA
CALIFORNIA INDIANA
GEORGIA NORTH CAROLINA
MISSOURI ILLINOIS OREGON NEVADA IDAHO
SOUTH CAROLINA WEST VIRGINIA
us
NEW YORK UTAH
ARIZONA WASHINGTON
COLORADO CONNECTICUT
NEW JERSEY MISSISSIPPI FLORIDA OKLAHOMA TENNESSEE MAINE WISCONSIN OHIO TEXAS
MASSACHUSETIS ARKANSAS KANSAS HAWAII IOWA MICHIGAN
0

I

I

I

I

I

5

10

15

20

25

2016 Youth turnout gap

12

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.260 Page 14 of 61
In fact, Michigan's youth turnout gap in 2016 was quite extraordinary. Figure 1 displays the turnout gap for each state with a sufficiently large survey sample for the CPS to provide age breakdowns, demonstrating that the youth turnout gap in Michigan was higher than that of any other state.
Michigan does not have an unusually low level of youth registration.
According to the CPS, around 55. 7 percent of U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 in Michigan were registered to vote in 2016. While this is a very low number, it is right around the overall national estimate of 55.4 percent. Michigan
stands out for its relatively low turnout among young people.
Michigan has not always been a laggard in relative youth turnout. State-bystate reports of turnout among citizens by age are available since 1996-allowing us to examine one presidential election prior to Michigan's implementation of its policy of requiring a single address for the driver's license and voter registration. In 1996, Michigan's youth turnout gap was actually below the national average. Michigan's turnout gap in that year was 20.9 percent, while in the United States as a whole it was 22.8 percent. But by 2000, after the enactment of Public Act 118, Michigan's youth turnout gap had risen to almost 25 percent, while the national average was 23 percent. With one exception, Michigan's youth turnout gap has been larger than the national youth turnout gap in every subsequent presidential
13

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.261 Page 15 of 61
election, and Michigan has been pulling further away from the national average overtime.
Figure 2 demonstrates this by plotting the difference between Michigan's youth turnout gap and the national youth turnout gap for each presidential election from 1996 to 2016.

Figure 2: Michigan youth yurnout gap relative to national youth turnout gap,

~
_:C:.,),.....
0
--.C..:.
::,
.c ::,
0 >,

g q 'iij
c:

LO

Ill C:

(/)
::,
.EC:

1996 to 2016

C. Ill
C)
~0 ----------------1-----------~
0
--.C..:.
::,
.c ::,
g,

C:
:g,LO :CC?
0'
~ 1995

2000

2005
Year

2010

2015

While the trend has not been smooth, Michigan's turnout gap has been trending upward relative to the national average since 1996, and by 2016, it has surpassed all other states.

14

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.262 Page 16 of 61
V. THE GEOGRAPHY OF MICHIGAN'S YOUTH TURNOUT GAP
In order to get a better understanding of Michigan's rather striking youth turnout gap, let us explore the geography of young voters and turnout. Young eligible voters are dispersed throughout Michigan, but a couple of geographic patterns stand out. First, the share of Michiganders in the age range between 18 and 24 is lower in more rural counties-especially in the Northern part of the Lower Peninsula and in the Upper Peninsula- that are experiencing population loss. And second, young Michiganders make up relatively large shares of the population in counties with large colleges and universities.
On its horizontal axis, Figure 3 displays the share of voting-age Michigan residents between the ages of 18 and 24 by county, using data from the Five-Year American Community Survey (2011-2015). The size of the data marker corresponds to the size of the county's voting-age population. Counties containing some of Michigan's largest residential-oriented universities are displayed with red markers and red labels. These include Ingham (Michigan State University), Washtenaw (University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University), Isabella (Central Michigan), Ottawa (Grand Valley State), Kalamazoo (Western Michigan), Oakland (Oakland University) and Mecosta (Ferris State). Oakland is a large suburban
15

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.263 Page 17 of 61
county where university students make up a small part of the population, but all of the other counties with large colleges or universities have relatively large youth population shares. In addition to those in red, two other very small counties have youth population shares above 15 percent: Houghton (home to Michigan Tech) and Marquette (Northern Michigan).
Figure 3: Turnout and youth population shares, Michigan counties

0.8
CL
~
0 0.7
c~u
.s::.
1/)
-1cu/)
::::,
-.oC.. 0.6
::::,
.c.o..
0 N
0.5

;

- -

-

--
OAKLAND-

--- --- -
-~

-
OTTAWA WASHTENAW
KALAMAZOO - - - - - - - - - - -~INGHAM
MECOSTA

0.1

0.2

0.3

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

16

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.264 Page 18 of 61
On the vertical axis of Figure 3, I display the votes cast in each county in the 2016 general election as a share of the voting-age population.4 Using data from all of the counties, the black fitted line captures the county-level relationship between the youth population share and the share of all citizen voting-age individuals who cast a ballot. It indicates that turnout was substantially lower in counties with relatively large youth populations. If we look only at the red data markers in Figure 3, we can see that this relationship is especially strong among the college counties.
Next, let us examine the county-level relationship between the prevalence of young people and registration rates. Figure 4 simply changes the vertical axis, displaying active county-level registrants as a share of the voting-age population. We see that as with turnout rates, there is a strong relationship between youth population and relatively low registration rates, and again, the relationship is especially strong among the college counties.
4 Data on votes cast by county are from the Michigan Secretary of State. Voting-age population data come from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. I have also used Citizen Voting-age population data are from the redistricting data published by the United States census bureau, taken from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, published 02/01/2017. Since CVAP and VAP are highly correlated, the graph using CVAP looks identical to the graph that uses VAP.
17

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.265 Page 19 of 61

Figure 4: Registration rates and youth population shares, Michigan counties

1.0
CL
~ o o.9
.sc~:u:.
U)
Ucu)
~
.!
~ 0.8
:~e
cu
.C..D.
0 N
0.7

=
-=-=-- -
0.1

INGHAM"

MECOSTA-

0.2

0.3

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

This striking county-level relationship between youth population and registration rates is not new. Unfortunately I have only been able to obtain countylevel registration data going back to January of 2000-just after the implementation of Public Act 118. Already then, there was a strong relationship between young voting-age population and low registration. It is plausible that the
18

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.266 Page 20 of 61
full effect of the law had not yet been felt by January of 2000, however. Thus it is useful to examine what has happened to county-level registration rates since then, both in the short term and the long term. Counties are not really the appropriate unit of analysis since they are quite large and young people make up a small minority of the population even in the college counties. But if Public Act 118 significantly discouraged young people from registering in their place of residence, we might be able to see that, after the implementation of the law, registration rates have lagged further behind in counties with relatively large youth populations.
First, let us compare county-level registration rates in January 2000 with those reported for October of 2002, right before the 2002 gubernatorial election. The vast majority of counties-GS of them-experienced an increase in registration numbers. Only 18 counties experienced a decrease. Most of these were very small Northern, rural counties that were losing registration simply because they were losing population. However, the list of counties that lost registrants during this period also included four college counties that were gaining voting-age population: Mecosta, Isabella, Ingham, and Kalamazoo. Moreover, the rate of growth in registration numbers was much slower in Ottawa and Washtenaw counties than that of voting-age population.
19

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.267 Page 21 of 61
When we take population growth into consideration, it is clear that the college counties-and more generally, counties with larger shares of young voters-experienced significantly lower growth in registration rates between 2000 and 2002. I divide January 2000 registration in each county by the 2000 voting-age population (from the decennial census), and do the same for October 2002 registration, and from these, calculate the rate of growth (or decline) in the registration rate from 2000 to 2002. I then estimate a simple linear regression, where this change in the registration rate is the dependent variable, and the share of voting-age population between 18 and 24 (from the 2000 census) is the key independent variable. I account for population change by including a control variable that captures the percent change in county-level voting-age population between the census of 2000 and the census of 2010.5 This simple model reveals that counties with larger shares of young people experienced significantly less registration growth during this short period. The model suggests that once we account for population shifts, a county around the Michigan mean-where 11 percent of the voting-age population is between the ages of 18 and 24-
5 The model includes 82 counties. I drop Lake County because it is an extreme outlier, suggesting a possible error in the registration data for 2000. The regression coefficient for the "youth share" variable is -.26, with a standard error of .07, and a p-value of .001. The coefficient for the population change variable is .29, with a standard error of .06, and a p-value of .0001.
20

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.268 Page 22 of 61
experienced a 2.5 percent increase in the registration rate. But a county where the youth voting-age population is 25 percent-in the range of Mecosta or Ingham Counties-experienced around a one percent decrease in the registration rate between January 2000 and October 2002.
This divergence since 2000 in registration rates between the college counties and the rest of the state has not abated. Let us examine the longer-term change in registration rates from January of 2000 to January of 2010. Specifically, I express 2000 registration as a share of VAP from the 2000 census, and 2010 registration as a share of VAP from the 2010 census, and calculate the percent change over time. Again, I perform a linear regression where the independent variable is the share of the voting-age population between the ages of 18 and 24.6 This model suggests that the average Michigan county experienced around a 4.5 percent increase in registration as a share of VAP, while a county with a 25 percent youth population experienced no growth. In fact, Mecosta, Isabella, and Ingham were among the small handful of Michigan counties with lower registration rates in 2010 than in
6 It is not necessary to include a control for population growth since the 2000 and 2010 are decennial census years, and registration numbers are divided by the appropriate voting-age population. This model includes the same 82 counties. The coefficient for youth share is -.26, with a standard error of .09 and a p-value of .004.
21

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.269 Page 23 of 61
2000, and Ingham-home to Michigan State University-experienced a sharper decline in its registration rate than any county in Michigan.
It is somewhat surprising that even at the highly aggregated level of Michigan counties, there is evidence that areas with larger youth populations-already laggards with respect to registration-fell further behind after the implementation of Public Act 118. It is also clear that counties with large youth populations are those with large student populations. All of this suggests that in order to understand Michigan's problem with youth turnout, it is advantageous to take a closer look at these college counties, where the prevalence of young people, low registration, and low turnout go hand in hand.
The county-level data provide only a very blunt first cut. After all, young people are quite geographically concentrated within these counties. Washtenaw, Oakland, and Ottawa, for instance, are counties with relatively high income and high overall registration and turnout, but they contain considerable internal spatial heterogeneity. To see this, it is necessary to analyze precinct-level data. I have collected precinct-level election results for the 2006 and 2008 elections and matched them to digitized precinct boundaries. This allows me to superimpose the precincts on census blocks, and then sum up block-level census data to the level of precincts. In this way, I have collected precinct-level estimates of individuals in
22

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.270 Page 24 of 61
each age group (as of the 2010 decennial census), as well as the number of individuals living in college dormitories. 7
This makes it possible to examine the relationship between age and turnout at the level of precincts within the college counties. In each case, turnout is far lower in precincts with large concentrations of young people than in the rest of the county. This relationship is demonstrated in Figure 5. For each county, the horizontal axis measures the share of the voting-age population composed of people between the ages of 18 to 24 in each precinct. The vertical axis measures the number of votes cast in the precinct in 2008 as a share of the voting-age population. The relationship is striking. Average turnout as a share of voting-age population was often around 70 or 80 percent-even higher in Washtenaw and Oakland Counties-in precincts where young voters accounted for 10 percent or fewer of voting-age individuals. However, turnout was roughly half that in the student-dominated precincts on the right side of each graph.
7 Precinct boundaries are constantly shifting, and decisions about changes to these boundaries are in the hands of city, municipal, and county governments. Thus the process of linking precinct boundaries to published precinct-level election results in painstaking. I have only completed this process for the elections of 2006 and 2008. My work on more recent elections is not yet complete.
23

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.271 Page 25 of 61

Figure 5: Turnout and youth population shares, precincts

Ingham

Washtenaw

Oakland

0..
-~
0
.clc!a:! o.8
Ill Ill
! o.6
Iculal
IClll) o o.4
>
.uC.li.)
0..

-
-----
-
0 .25

•.=...
-~

-

- = ~ -

0 .5 0

0 .7 5

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

Isabella

0..

-~ 1.0

...0

Cl)

-

! o.8
Ill

-Iclal
XI o.6
u

..... IClll)
'g o.4

-

.-.. -=
=~

.uC.li.)

0..

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

Ottawa

0..
-~ 1.0
.0C.l.)

! o.8

Ill

Iclal

1ciai 0.6

u

-IClll)

~

g o.4

.uC.li.)
0.. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

Mecosta

0..
-~ 0.8
0 Cl) :a o.6
.c
Ill
Ill
! 0.4
Iculal
ggJ 0.2

0..
-~ 1.0
0 Cl) :a o.8
.c
Ill
Ill
ca 0.6
1cuiai
-gJ 0.4
g

.~.. 0.0

.~.. 0.2

0..

0 .2

0.4

0 .6

0.8 0..

-

0 .2

0.4

0 .6

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

Kalamazoo

0..
-~ 0.8
...0
Cl) 0.7
.cca
111 0.6
-Iclal
XI o.5
u
.I!l!l 0.4
g

.~.. 0.3
0..

0 .2

0.4

0.6

Age 18-24 as share of VAP

•

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Age 18-24 as share of VAP
24

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.272 Page 26 of 61
In fact, Figure 5 understates the typical strength of the precinct-level relationship between geographically concentrated student populations and low turnout. The 2008 election was a high point for youth turnout in Michigan. According to the CPS studies cited above, 51 percent of voting-age citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 voted in that election, but by 2016, the figure descended all the way to 37.8 percent.
Nevertheless, these graphs demonstrate that turnout is exceptionally low in precincts near colleges and universities. Precincts where 30 to 60 percent of the voting-age population are 18 to 24 years old are typically campus areas with rental housing geared toward students. Those with even higher shares of young peopleon the far right-hand side of each graph- are often precincts containing dormitories. And they exhibit strikingly low levels of electoral participation relative to their surroundings, indeed relative to almost any place in Michigan.
It is useful to visualize the relationship not only in graphs, but in maps as well. Figure 6 provides a map of 2008 turnout as a share of voting-age population in Washtenaw County. Turnout was extremely high in the non-student neighborhoods on the West Side of Ann Arbor and in non-student neighborhoods like Burns Park, as well as in exurban and rural parts of the county, but very low around the campuses of the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan
25

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.273 Page 27 of 61 University. The only other place to rival the low turnout of these university areas was the precinct containing the Milan Federal Correctional Institute on the Southern border of Washtenaw County. Figure 6: 2018 Turnout in Central/Eastern Washtenaw County
Ann Arbor Boundary 0.30- 0.52 0.53- 0.65 0.66 - 0.76 0.77 - 0.86 0.87 - 0.99
Milan Fed. Correctional
Institute
26

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.274 Page 28 of 61

Figure 7: Young people as share of VAP in Central/Eastern Washtenaw County

Legend
~ Ann Arbor Boundary ~ Ypsilanti Boundary Age 18-24NAP
0.06-0.11

0.12-0.16 0.17 - 0.26

-

0.27-0.40

-

0.41-0.83

..

Milan Fed. Correctional
Institute
Figure 7 displays the share of the voting-age population between the ages of 18 and 24. The maps clarify that the neighborhoods with large concentrations of young people are also those with the lowest turnout. Additionally, Figure 8, which
27

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.275 Page 29 of 61

displays college dormitory residents as a share of voting-age population, clarifies
that the most extreme low-turnout pockets are precincts containing dormitories.
Figure 8: Dormitory dwellers as a Share of VAP in Central/Eastern Washtenaw County

i!J: ..
-I

Legend
~ Ann Arbor Boundary ~ Ypsilanti Boundary Dorm population / VAP
0.00- 0.02

0.03-0.12

-

0.13-0.21

-

0.22-0.57

-

0.58-0.96

Milan Fed. Correctional
Institute
28

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.276 Page 30 of 61
VI. THE DECLINING RELATIVE TURNOUT OF MICHIGAN'S COLLEGE TOWNS
County-level and precinct-level snapshots of single elections are useful, but it is possible to draw a clearer connection between Michigan's laws and practices and the youth turnout gap. After all, at least some youth turnout gap is present in every state. Moreover, in part because of their residential mobility, college student turnout is relatively low in other states as well. A group of researchers at Tufts University, in a project called the National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLIVE), has matched enrollment records of students to voter rolls at a large number of universities. They have used the data to calculate rates of electoral participation in the November election of 2016 among students at over 1,000 colleges and universities. The average rate of voting for students at research institutions around the United States was 52.3 percent, but at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, it was only 44.7 percent.8 At one of Michigan's Big-10 peer institutions, the University of Minnesota, it was 65 percent.9
It would be useful to know whether these patterns of unusually low youth and college turnout can be linked more closely to Michigan's laws and practices-
8 NSLIVE, "Student Voting Rates for the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor," August 2017. 9 NSLIVE, "student Voting Rates for the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities," August 2017.
29

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.277 Page 31 of 61
in particular, the 1999 passage of Public Act 118. From the Michigan Secretary of State's office, I have obtained precinct-level election results from 1998 to 2014. Unfortunately, these data sets do not include registration data, but they do include total votes cast. Fortunately, the data coverage allows me to have one observation that precedes the 1999 reform-the gubernatorial election year of 1998. Precinctlevel boundaries are changed by county, city, and municipal governments quite frequently, but city boundaries are fixed. Moreover, the census provides aggregates of voting-age population at the level of cities and counties. 10 Thus, I am able to examine turnout as a share of voting-age population in college towns like Ann Arbor, East Lansing, and Mount Pleasant to assess whether it fell relative to the rest of the county after the implementation of the reform. Since the only prereform observation is a gubernatorial year, it is sensible to examine subsequent gubernatorial (non-presidential) election years.
If the law had the impact of deterring students from registering and ultimately casting ballots in college towns, we should expect to see that electoral participation in college towns decreased relative to that of their surrounding counties in 2002 vis-a-vis 1998. Moreover, it is unlikely that the impact of the
10 I collect information on voting-age population at the level of the census place and county from the decennial census, and for each, I interpolate mid-decade values based on a linear trend.
30

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.278 Page 32 of 61
reform would be limited to an immediate one-year shock. In fact, some students would still have been registered under the old rules in 2002. And we should anticipate that the law's impact would unfold further over time, as more students move to college towns, learn about the law, and make decisions about whether to change their registration.
Let us begin with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and Oakland University. Both are located in large, affluent, suburban counties with high rates of turnout (see Oakland and Washtenaw Counties in Figure 3 above). Both are places where we might not expect to see an impact of the law at such a high level of aggregation. Ann Arbor is a large, affluent, and growing community with very high (and growing) turnout in non-student neighborhoods. The same is true of Rochester Hills and Auburn Hills, which I have combined for this analysis. Oakland University students do not make up a very large share of the combined populations of these two cities. Thus, we might expect to see that any decline in turnout among students after the promulgation of the 1999 law might be offset by increasing turnout among the surrounding affluent communities.
Figure 9 presents data on the turnout of Ann Arbor relative to Washtenaw County, and the turnout of Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills relative to Oakland County. Specifically, I calculate county turnout, defined as gubernatorial votes cast
31

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.279 Page 33 of 61
as a share of voting-age population, and city turnout, defined in the same way. I subtract the latter from the former, which produces a measure of the turnout gap between the college town and the county as a whole.
Figure 9: College town turnout gap: Ann Arbor and Oakland
- (0 t---"A"n"n TArb"o"r v-s-. -W-a-sh-te-n-a-w---1 t-R-o-c"he"s"teTr/A"ub"u-rn-H-i-lls-v-s-. O-a-k-la-n-d1 C!
::::, 0
-.C....
::::,
-::::,
0
-E o
::::,
~
C ::::, 0 (.) C\I
~ -----'-...------r-----r---..----' -----'-...------r-----r---..----' 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year
County gub. votes cast as share of VAP minus college town gub. voters cast as share of VAP
Figure 9 shows that there was already a turnout gap between Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County as a whole in 1998. However, it increased substantially in both 2002 and 2006, and then leveled off. In Oakland County, turnout in Rochester Hills and Auburn Hills was higher than the rest of Oakland County prior to the reform.
32

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.280 Page 34 of 61
However, by 2002 a turnout gap had emerged, and it increased again in 2006 before leveling off.

Figure 10: College town turnout gap: Allendale, Big Rapids, East Lansing, and Mount Pleasant

- LO "!
::::,

0
.C...

"!

::::,

-:C:: .L.O..

0

- "-:

Q)

Cl

..92 LO

0u C!

Cl)

::::,

-.EC

LO
"!

::::, 0

"!

--.C...
.... ::::, LO
>, C

::::, "-:

0

(.)

LO

C!

1995

Allendale vs. Ottawa County

East Lansing vs. Ingham

I I
y I

. • •

I I I I
I
2000 2005 2010 2015 1995

Big Rapids vs. Mecosta Mount Pleasant vs. Isabella
2000 2005 2010 2015

Year
County gub. votes cast as share of VAP minus college town gub. voters cast as share of VAP

Figure 10 examines four additional college towns relative to their surrounding counties. 11 Relative to the Southeast Michigan counties, the turnout

11 I exclude Kalamazoo from this analysis because student housing, including university dormitories, spill substantially over from Kalamazoo city, across the boundary into Kalamazoo township. Thus I cannot rely upon the city boundary as a useful dividing line between "student" and "non-student" populations.
33

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.281 Page 35 of 61
gap was much larger to begin with in these counties. But in each case, the turnout gap grew in the first two post-reform elections. In Ottawa and Ingham Counties, the increased gap leveled off and remained substantial. In Mecosta county it leveled off, and in Isabella County, it has fallen below the 1998 level. In both of these cases, the declining college town turnout gap in the last two elections is a function of turnout that is declining faster in rural areas (especially on tribal lands) than in the college town.
In sum, all of the college towns experienced a decrease in turnout relative to their surrounding counties in the two elections immediately after the reform. In five out of six counties examined, this increased turnout gap has persisted to the present day.
VII. CASE STUDIES OF REFORM
Since 1999, Michigan's overall youth turnout gap has increased, as has the turnout gap between college towns and their surroundings. But it is possible to examine even more directly the hypothesis that the law had an impact on college students. The next step is to examine individual precincts within college towns before and after the reform. If the new law created disincentives for young college
34

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.282 Page 36 of 61
students to register in their dormitories or college apartments, we should expect to see decreases in the number of registrants immediately following the reform in precincts with large numbers of young people in the college counties.
A problem with this research design is that precinct boundaries frequently change. Unfortunately, many counties and cities make changes after new decennial census data are released, which means changes took place in all of the counties between 1998 and 2002. This makes it difficult to directly compare registration and turnout numbers in specific precincts over time. However, this is sometimes possible if the changes to precinct boundaries involve not wholesale redrawing, but rather, consolidations and splits of existing precincts. Fortunately, it is possible to make direct comparisons over time since 1998 for all college precincts in East Lansing and some in Kalamazoo.
In Ann Arbor, precinct boundary changes have been more extensive, but I am able to pursue a different strategy: I link each precinct in each period to corresponding geo-spatial boundaries, and as above, I aggregate block-level data on the age structure of the population to the level of precincts, which allows me to examine whether registration has fallen over time in precincts with large shares of young Michiganders-even if the precinct boundaries have changed.
35

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.283 Page 37 of 61
East Lansing Ingham County is a good place to start. In fact, the law requiring a
constantly-updated agreement between a voter's driver's license and registration address may have had its origins in Ingham County. While serving in the State Senate, Republican Mike Rogers sponsored the legislation one year before running for the extremely competitive gth Congressional district, which included East Lansing. East Lansing's precincts-especially those around Michigan State University-had been some of the most reliably Democratic in the gth District. For example, all of the campus-area precincts had given at least 80 percent of the twoparty vote to the Democratic candidate, Debbie Stabenow, in 1998. By the standards of today's gubernatorial election years, campus-area turnout was high. Summing over all East Lansing precincts where at least 50 percent of the population was between the ages of 18 and 24, Stabenow received 5,222 votes in campus precincts, and 7,844 in East Lansing as a whole. Similarly, Democratic State Senator Dianne Byrum, who ran against Rogers in the 2000 8th Congressional district race, won more than 63% of the vote in campus precincts her 1998 State Senate race (more than 72 percent of the two-party vote). After the reform was implemented, Rogers won the seat by a razor-thin margin of 111 votes.
36

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.284 Page 38 of 61
Let us now examine what happened in the MSU-area precincts after the reform was implemented. Fortunately, changes to the precinct boundaries from 1998 to 2002 around the Michigan State campus only involved consolidations, so by summing over consolidated precincts, it is possible to make a direct comparison of votes cast before and after the reform, and in subsequent elections as well. 12 Ingham County does not report historical precinct-level registration numbers, but the total ballots cast are quite informative. Recall from above that East Lansing1 s turnout decreased relative to that of Ingham County from 1998 to 2002. The precinct-level data allow us to see that this was driven overwhelmingly by college precincts. In the dorm-dominated precincts, the number of ballots dropped suddenly and dramatically in 2002.
This can be visualized in Figure 11, which plots the precinct-level share of voting-age population between the ages of 18 and 24 on the horizontal axis, and the percent change in the number of ballots cast since 1998 on the vertical axis. The percent change from 1998 to 2002 is plotted in black. While the number of ballots cast decreased by a relatively small amount in the non-student areas of East
12 I have consulted gee-spatial boundaries of precincts that were submitted by Ingham County to the United States Census Department in 2000 and 2010, and have verified that these line-up with written narrative descriptions of historical ward boundaries published by Ingham County for various elections.
37

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.285 Page 39 of 61
Lansing (on the left-hand side of the graph), the number of ballots cast in the student-dominated precincts (on the right side of the graph) collapsed by 40 percent in some precincts, and as much as 68 percent in one dorm-heavy precinct.

Figure 11: Percent change in ballots cast in gth District Congressional Elections:

East Lansing, Michigan

C:
u 0
~0a.>

Cl
§ •

()

.!: "! - •
CIQ I
0)
,0...).

a,

0

.!:
(/)

"<,t·"

-

iii
Ill 0
~
~~-
.0 I

• • •
•

• • • • •
•

•

•

• •

• • •

•

•

•

• ••

•

•

• •

C:
a,

•

Cl

C:
~ <X! -

•

o' ._-~,-----~,-----.--,----~,-----~.

cft.

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Age 18 to 24 as share of VAP

I• 2002 Election • 201 o Election

This sudden decline in voting on the Michigan State campus and its environs was not a temporary phenomenon. On the contrary, the geographic distribution of electoral participation in East Lansing experienced a permanent change. The red dots in Figure 11 show the percent change in Congressional votes cast from 1998

38

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.286 Page 40 of 61

to 2010. They demonstrate that the highly asymmetric collapse of turnout in

student precincts has been persistent.

This turnout gap has much to do with an underlying registration gap. For

recent elections, Ingham County has started to publish precinct-level registration

numbers, allowing us to examine the registration gap between non-campus

precincts and campus precincts within East Lansing.

Figure 12: Registered voters as share of VAP and youth as share of VAP, East Lansing, Michigan, 2008

.T.."."..
..... a..
-~
....0
Q) 0)
.1c1'
(J) (J)
11' c:~ 0
-...:.:;
11'
.(CJ)l
a: . Q) I'-,
~
0

•

••

•

•

•• •

•

.2

.4

.6

Age 18 to 24 as share of VAP

• •
.8

Figure 12 uses registration data from 2008, in order to facilitate comparability with the precinct-level turnout graph for Ingham County provided earlier in the report. Figure 12 shows that registration rates are very close to 100
39

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.287 Page 41 of 61
percent in the non-campus East Lansing precincts on the left side of the graph, but in the range of 65 to 70 percent in the dorm-dominated precincts on the right side of the graph.
Kalamazoo Kalamazoo also provides a very good opportunity to track precincts
associated with the university over time. The City of Kalamazoo used a system of 30 precincts from 1992 to 2001. At the end of that period, they conducted a retrospective assessment of precinct-level registration. A published report provides precinct-level registration and turnout averages for that period. I have been able to use geo-spatial boundaries of these precincts to connect them with block-level census geography, and have calculated the share of the voting-age population between the ages of 18 and 24 in each of these precincts. I can then examine registration and turnout numbers in November of 2000, immediately after the reform was implemented, but before the precincts were redrawn, to see if registration and turnout were lower in precincts with relatively large student populations.
Both turnout and registration were relatively flat in the parts of Kalamazoo without large student populations, while sudden, rapid declines were evident in
40

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.288 Page 42 of 61

some of the student-dominated precincts. Figure 13 plots percent changes in

registration (in red) and turnout (in black) from the prior decade-long average to

the single election of 2000. It is surprising to see such a sudden decrease in

registration and turnout, especially since the average published by the city actualy

includes the year 2000.

Figure 13: Percent change in registration and ballots cast in Kalamazoo City, average from 1992 to 2000 compared with 2000

-::::,
0
.C..:.
. .. ~o::::,
0

--~ -.,

•
•

•
-•i--••- - -••-

, .....•.· .. ~

u.i

• •• • •

----------------l

• •• ••

• •

•

·c, ~ "! -

•

.!: I

•

Q)

Cl

C:

(1l

.c
~c: ~I -

•

•

~

aQ..)

•

CC? -

I

~ ....., . - - - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - ~ , - - - - - - ,

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

Age 18 to 24 as share of VAP

I• Registration • Turnout I

In order to track any possible continued decline in registration and turnout after 2000, I would need to be able to match all of the precincts after the 2002 change in precinct boundaries. I am unable to do that for the city as a whole, but fortunately, the main section of the Western Michigan University campus-home
41

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.289 Page 43 of 61

to many dormitory residents-was contained within Kalamazoo City precincts 4

and 5 from 1992 to 2000. Beginning with a new precinct system put in place in

2002, it is my understanding, based on analysis of precinct maps, that those

precincts were combined to form precinct 2 in the new system. Thus, it appears

that we can make a direct long-term comparison of at least one major section of

the Western Michigan campus. We can track the registration totals for the years

of the retrospective study (1992 to 2000), the year 2000, as well as subsequent

years. The data are displayed in Figure 14 below.

Figure 14: Registered voters on the main section of the Western Michigan University campus, 1992-2010
0 0 0 s::I"

0 0
LO ('I)
(/)
...S.. 0o
00
>('I)
"C
.Q..).
.So
.la 0
e>LO Q) C\I
a:
0 0 0 C\I

0 0
.L..O.. 1990

1995

2000
Year

Observations from 1992 to 1998 are a period average

2005

2010

42

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.290 Page 44 of 61

Immediately after the reform, it appears that registration on the Western Michigan

University campus plummeted. During the years from 1992 to 2001, including the

year 2000, the average registration reported by the city was 3,850. But we can see

that in the year 2000, registration had already fallen dramatically to 2,559. By the

time of the 2002 election, it was down to 1,481-well below half of the pre-reform

level.

Figure 15: Registered voters as share of VAP and youth as share of VAP, Kalamazoo City, Michigan, 2008

.L..O..

•

• • •• • • • •

•

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

Age 18 to 24 as share of VAP

As in East Lansing, the youth registration gap in Kalamazoo City remains

quite striking. In recent years, registration rates in the campus precincts are

around half of those in the non-student neighborhoods of Kalamazoo. Figure 15

plots the registration rate (as a share of estimated voting-age population) in

43

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.291 Page 45 of 61
Kalamazoo City in 2008 against young people as a share of the voting-age population. 14
Figure 15 shows that rates of campus registration are quite low in Kalamazoo. An important part of the reason why ballots cast as a share of VAP are low in the campus precints is that eligible young people are simply not registered-at least not in Kalamazoo.
Ann Arbor It is not possible to track individual precincts over time in Ann Arbor due to
wide-ranging precinct boundary changes that go well beyond consolidations and splits. Polling places and precinct boundaries are complex and shifting in Ann Arbor in part because of its unusual ward structure. Each of Ann Arbor's Five wards originates near the middle of the University of Michigan campus, and the boundaries of the wards extend outward from campus to the outer neighborhoods like slices of pizza. Remarkably, students living in a quarter-mile radius of Angell Hall are divided between all five Ann Arbor wards. It is difficult to escape the
14 Note that in the non-campus parts of Kalamazoo, the number of registered voters surpassed the voting-age population, presumably because a relatively large number of inactive voters were on the voter file in Kalamazoo in 2008.
44

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.292 Page 46 of 61
conclusion that the ward boundaries were drawn in this way to prevent students from forming majorities in any of the five wards.
Nevertheless, Ann Arbor is a useful college town to examine, because Washtenaw County publishes historical registration counts for each precinct in each year. Instead of attempting to follow individual precincts over time, I have entered these data by hand from county electoral records and matched each precinct in each ward with the relevant geo-spatial boundary file. This allows me to aggregate block-level age data from the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses to the level of precincts and examine the shifting relationship between age and registration over time. I have been able to obtain data for the 1998, 2002, and 2010 gubernatorial election years. Figure 16 once again displays the 18 to 24 population as a share of the voting-age population for each precinct on the horizontal axis. The vertical axis represents the number of registrants in each precinct as a share of the voting age population. The solid line captures the relationship between these two variables for the 1998 election. The dashed line captures the 2002 election, and the thick dotted line captures the 2010 election. Figure 16 demonstrates that in 2002, registration numbers did not change in the parts of Ann Arbor without substantial student populations. However, the dashed line dips well below the solid line on the right side of the graph, indicating a substantial drop in registration
45

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.293 Page 47 of 61
from 1998 to 2002, as in Kalamazoo. The dotted line indicates that registration as a share of VAP has continued to fall not only in the eight dorm-heavy precincts portrayed in the far-right side of the graph, but also in the precincts containing a mix of student apartments and single-family houses, where the youth population is in the range of 30 to 60 percent.

Figure 16: Registered voters as a share of VAP in Ann Arbor, Ml

~
a.. ~
-0L0O0
.Q..). •
!ti ..c: UJ UJ
-.!Ut.Ji.0..0
Q)
0 >
"C
,Q_) LO
.UJs"•
"o,
aQ:)
I'-:
0

-------~,.~---- /_,,_
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
\\\

' ' ' \ \
\ \ \
' ____ _ ' ' ' .................... ...._.

~.....
,.//''111111111111111111111\\\\\ll/11,1,11111111111

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Age 18 to 24 as share of VAP

- - - 1998 election 2010 election 1111111111111111 '

- - - - - 2002 election

As with East Lansing and Kalamazoo, the youth registration gap in Ann Arbor depicted by Figures 16 is quite striking. Registration rates in the non-student parts of Ann Arbor are North of 85 percent, but they are around 70 percent on average
46

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.294 Page 48 of 61
in the precincts where young people make up more than half of the voting-age population. In five student-heavy precincts, where young people make up more than 80 percent of the voting-age population, registration rates are well below 60 percent. Prior to the reform, registration rates in comparable precincts were around 80 percent.
VIII. AGE AND ABSENTEE VOTING Registration and electoral participation in the vicinity of Michigan's college campuses are unquestionably very low. It is conceivable, however, that precinctlevel data from college towns is misleading because college students are, perhaps in response to Public Act 118, voting via absentee ballot at their parents' home address. Perhaps it is the case that young people-especially those in college towns-are casting absentee ballots at unusually high rates. In order to examine this supposition, it is necessary to consult a Michigan voter file, which contains a full list of registered voters and their birth years as well as indicators of recent electoral participation, including an indicator of whether the individual cast an inperson or absentee ballot. The voter file also indicates whether the individual is on a list-maintained by individual jurisdictions in Michigan-of so-called
47

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.295 Page 49 of 61
"permanent" absentee voters, who will automatically receive a ballot prior to each election.
Using this resource, it is straightforward to calculate rates of absentee voting for each age group. Figure 17 displays the share of registered voters who cast an absentee ballot by age in the November 2016 general election.
Figure 17: Share of registered voters who cast an absentee ballot in November 2016 general election, by age
0 .6
0.5

-- 0.1 • --=--

20

40

60

80

Age

Figure 17 demonstrates that absentee voting in Michigan is not primarily used by young voters who are more likely to make frequent residential moves. On
48

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.296 Page 50 of 61
the contrary, it is overwhelmingly used by Michiganders above the age of 60. This graph is no surprise, since all voters above the age of 60 are automatically eligible for an absentee ballot in Michigan and they are also automatically exempt from the requirement that first-time voters who register other than in-person must vote inperson. The large discontinuity in the graph between the ages of 59 and 60-and the steep increase in absentee balloting for those in their early Gos-suggests that the demand for absentee voting is quite strong in Michigan, and the age cut-off for automatic eligibility is clearly preventing many Michiganders from enjoying the same convenience as those over the age of 60.
In fact, many registered voters in Michigan above the age of 60 have signed up for the early voting list. They receive their ballot in the mail prior to each election. They are able to make use of the same convenience as voters in states like California or Arizona, which allow no-excuse absentee voting and permanent absentee voting status. Figure 18, which plots the share of voters on the early voting list by age, demonstrates that the early voting list is composed almost completely of voters over the age of 60.
49

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.297 Page 51 of 61 Figure 18: Share of registered voters on the permanent early voting list, by age

!
~ 0.4
en
C
~
!
Jco
-:Cg 0.2
co E
i
•

0.0

20

40

60

80

Age

When it comes to absentee voting, Michigan and its counties and municipalities maintain a very different election system for older and younger Michigan voters. While older voters can and do vote absentee automatically, new mail-in registrants, or those who register via third-party registration drives, are expressly forbidden from voting absentee, and Michigan does not maintain an online registration system. This law disproportionately affects young people. According to my analysis of the Michigan voter file, people between the ages of 18

so

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.298 Page 52 of 61
and 24 make up around 8 percent of registered voters in Michigan, but they account for 23 percent of those who have registered in 2015 or later, and 27 percent of registered voters who voted for the first time in November 2016. In other words, new registrants and new voters are, as one would anticipate, disproportionately young.
The overall rate of absentee voting among registered voters in Michigan in the 2016 general election was 17 percent. But among those in the age range of 18 to 24, it was 8 percent-less than half the statewide rate. As one night expect given the law about new registrants, the rate of absentee voting was especially lowaround 6.7 percent-among those between the ages of 18 and 24 who registered in 2015 or 2016. One might suspect that absentee voting rates among young people are higher in counties that send the most students off to Michigan's colleges and universities. The Michigan Department of Education publishes information that tracks whether high school graduates enroll in college. 15 From this data source, it is possible to identify the counties that send the most students to colleges and universities. In order, the top 5 "sending" counties are Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee. Together, these account for well over half of all
15 "College Enrollment by High School Entity Breakdown," available at www.mischooldata.org, accessed on August 31, 2018.
51

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.299 Page 53 of 61
Michigan high school graduates who go off to college. The rate of absentee voting among young people in these five counties is no different than elsewhere in Michigan: 8 percent. And the rate is even lower-around 7 percent-for young people in those counties who registered in 2015 or later.
In sum, the absentee system in Michigan does not appear to provide a solution for college students who do not wish to change their driver1 s license every year. Absentee voting in Michigan is conducted in a way that, by design, favors older voters and leaves out a sizable group of young voters.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
The age composition of Michigan1 s voters is quite different from that of its voting-age population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the gap between overall turnout and that of young people is greater in Michigan than in any other state. This report has demonstrated that election laws and practices are very likely a part of the explanation. In particular, after the promulgation of Public Act 118 of 1999, Michigan1 s youth turnout gap increased relative to other states, registration clearly fell by large amounts in areas near colleges, and the turnout of college towns decreased relative to their surroundings. Relative registration rates even fell at the
52

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 13-3 filed 09/08/18 PageID.300 Page 54 of 61 county level in the counties that contained large student populations. Moreover, Michigan1 s electoral laws and practices have created a striking difference between older and younger residents in the use of absentee ballots.
53

 </s> Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 26 filed 01/03/19 PageID.924 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, THE COLLEGE DEMOCRATS AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, and THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF COLLEGE DEMOCRATS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Michigan Secretary of State, and SALLY WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections,

No. 5:18-cv-12722
HON. ROBERT H. CLELAND
MAG. STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS
STIPULATED ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND POSTPONE STATUS CONFERENCE

Defendants. ____________________________________/

Marc E. Elias Elisabeth C. Frost Hayley L. Berlin (P75871) Jacki L. Anderson PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Michigan Telephone: (734) 678-2151

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 26 filed 01/03/19 PageID.925 Page 2 of 4
Sambo Dul PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788 Telephone: (602) 351-8204
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Scott Mertens Heather S. Meingast Assistant Attorneys General P. O. Box 30736 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Telephone: (517) 373-6434
Counsel for Defendants /
In light of: (1) the passage of the Promote the Vote Initiative and its
potential impact on some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims; and (2) the upcoming
January 1, 2019 swearing-in of the newly-elected Michigan Secretary of State, who
will become the Defendant in this case, and of her counsel, the Attorney General of
Michigan, see M.C.L.S. § 168.79, with whom Plaintiffs will need to discuss any
potential settlement of this case, and considering the stipulation of the Parties:
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the status conference scheduled for January 9,
2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Port Huron, Michigan is vacated; and (2) the Court’s
September 28, 2018 stay of this matter, including Defendants’ deadline to file a
responsive pleading, see Stipulated Order to Stay Proceedings and Set Status
Conference Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(1) (Sept. 28, 2018), ECF No. 23, is
2

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 26 filed 01/03/19 PageID.926 Page 3 of 4
extended pending a status conference to be re-set on March 8, 2019 at 1:30 pm, at the United States District Court, Detroit, Michigan, Room 1061.
S/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 3, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, January 3, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (810) 292-6522

The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate to the entry of the above Order.

/s/ Sambo Dul Marc E. Elias Elisabeth C. Frost Hayley L. Berlin (P75871) Jacki L. Anderson PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Michigan Telephone: (734) 678-2151 Facsimile: (202) 654-9959

Dated: December 28, 2018

Sambo Dul PERKINS COIE LLP

3

Case 3:18-cv-12722-RHC-SDD ECF No. 26 filed 01/03/19 PageID.927 Page 4 of 4

2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788 Telephone: (602) 351-8204 Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ Heather Meingast Scott Mertens Heather Meingast Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Telephone: (517) 373-6434 Counsel for Defendants

Dated: December 28, 2018

4


[CONTENT] August 30th, 2018 | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | Michigan ||| Michigan | State | Ruth Johnson | the Michigan Bureau of Elections | Sally Williams | under 42 | 1983 | § | 1988 | First | Twenty-Sixth Amendments ||| State | 118 | Roger’s Law ||| District | Robert H. Cleland ||| Roger’s Law | two | first |||  |||  |||  ||| September 7th, 2018 ||| September 8th, 2018 ||| Stanford Political Science | Jonathan Rodden ||| 2018 | 10072776 ||| September 25 ||| 2018 ||| January 9, 2019 ||| Whitmer ||| June 5, 2019 | Whitmer ||| Cleland | June 11 [SUMMARY] On August 30th, 2018, several student groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs sued the Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, and the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, Sally Williams under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988 for alleged constitutional violations of the First, Fourteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments. The plaintiffs, represented by a combination of public interest and private attorneys, sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the State from enforcing Public Act 118, also known as Roger’s Law, which plaintiffs alleged put significant barriers in place for college aged students who wanted to vote. The case was assigned to District Judge Robert H. Cleland.

Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that Roger’s Law placed two major barriers in the way of students seeking to vote: Strict matching requirements and requirement that a person first vote in person. The strict matching requirement prohibited college students, who had their home address listed on state identification, from using said identification to register to vote in their college town. The in-person voting requirement prohibited college students, who would need to return to their permanent addresses to vote, from voting if they were far from home. Plaintiff claimed that these laws were driven to enactment by discriminatory intent, as shown through the explicit statement by the legislation’s drafter that he didn’t care if college-aged students couldn’t vote.

The complaint was later amended on September 7th, 2018, to add new plaintiffs, specifically more student groups. 

On September 8th, 2018, a motion for preliminary injunction was filed, but stayed while the parties negotiated a potential settlement. Along with the motion, the plaintiffs filed an expert report from Stanford Political Science Professor Jonathan Rodden supporting their arguments. 2018 WL 10072776. On September 25, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their preliminary injunction. They did this because of their preparations for the 2018 midterm elections, and the potential impact that the elections would have on the outcome of the case. Status updates were moved to January 9, 2019. 

Status updates were further delayed as the Whitmer administration was sworn in and implemented policies that expanded access to vote-by-mail programs. The plaintiffs submitted a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case on June 5, 2019, perhaps because of progress toward the plaintiff's asks by the Whitmer administration. Judge Cleland dismissed the case on June 11; the case is closed.