HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congcourts/fjcsfaws0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
Staying a Federal Action While a State Action
Proceeds Over Mailing Unsolicited Absentee
Ballot Applications in Detroit During an
Infectious Pandemic
Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey
(Robert H. Cleland, E.D. Mich. 3:20-cv-12129)
During the global COVID-19 infectious pandemic, a federal action
challenged the legality of Detroit election officials' mailing out unso-
licited absentee ballot applications. Recognizing the complexity of
applying state law on the matter during the pandemic, the district
judge declined jurisdiction over the state claims and stayed the fed-
eral claim pending a related action in state court.
Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots;
COVID-19; matters for state courts; enforcing orders.
During the global COVID-19 infectious pandemic, a voter who voted in an
August 4, 2020, primary election filed a federal complaint on August 9 in the
Eastern District of Michigan against Detroit's election officials, alleging that it
was illegal for the defendants to send the voter an unsolicited absentee ballot
application in June.1 Among the complaint's claims was one for criminal con-
tempt, an allegation that mailing the absentee ballot applications violated a
state court order.2
Michigan's court of appeals ruled in 2007 that it was not proper for De-
troit's election officials to mail out unsolicited absentee ballot applications:
[I]t is clear that the city clerk has no powers concerning the distribution of
ballot applications other than those that are expressly granted in the statute.
And the power to mail unsolicited ballot applications to qualified voters is not
expressly stated anywhere in this statute.3
On the day after she filed her complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction against the mailing of
unsolicited absentee ballot applications for the November general election.4
Judge Robert H. Cleland denied the plaintiff a temporary restraining order
on August 11 and set the case for an August 19 videoconference hearing, post-
ing contact information on the public record.'
Learning from the defendants' briefing, however, that similar claims were
pending in state court, Judge Cleland canceled the August 19 hearing on
1. Complaint, Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey, No. 3:20-cv-12129 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2020), D.E. 1.
2. Id. at 13-20.
3. Taylor v. Currie, 277 Mich. App. 85, 743 N.W.2d 571, 577 (2007), review denied, 483
Mich. 907, 762 N.W.2d 169 (2009); see also Taylor v. Currie, 386 F. Supp. 2d 929 (E.D. Mich.
2005) (remand to state court by Judge Robert H. Cleland of the case, which was improperly
removed to federal court with a federal cause of action).
4. Motion, Reed-Pratt, No. 3:20-cv-12129 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2020), D.E. 2.
5. Order, id. (Aug. 11, 2020), D.E. 8; Notice, id. (Aug. 11, 2020), D.E. 9.
Federal Judicial Center 1/29/2021
I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjcsfaws0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)