Summary
The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause commits the power to regulate the times,
places, and manner of federal congressional elections strictly to the state legislature,
subject only to alteration by Congress. In Michigan, this constitutional safeguard was
dismantled when statewide ballot initiatives—2018 Proposal 3 and 2022 Proposal
2—bypassed the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives entirely. Using the
direct-democracy petition mechanism under Article XII, Section 2 of the Michigan
Constitution, outside initiatives altered voter registration, absentee balloting, and federal
election procedures without legislative deliberation, debate, or statutory enactment.
Among the rules written by 2022 Proposal 2 was a requirement of at least nine days of early voting for statewide and federal elections. Each early-voting site must be open for at least nine consecutive days, beginning the second Saturday before Election Day and ending the Sunday before it. The Michigan House and Senate never voted on those changes.
While earlier litigation brought by state legislators encountered procedural standing
roadblocks, the legal landscape has decisively shifted. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's
Bost doctrine, federal congressional candidates possess categorical Article III standing
to contest the unlawful rules, procedures, and unconstitutional mandates governing their
own elections.
Federal congressional candidates in Michigan are filing a federal civil rights action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against Governor Gretchen
Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and Director of Elections Jonathan Brater.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief establishing that citizen-initiated
ballot proposals cannot amend state constitutions to regulate federal contests,
rendering the 2018 and 2022 amendments void as applied to federal congressional
elections. By supporting this litigation, you fund the definitive federal challenge to
enforce the Elections Clause, eliminate ultra vires election mandates, and set binding
precedent restoring legislative primacy.
Overview
Reason to Donate:
-
Defending the Elections Clause: Enforcing Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of
the U.S. Constitution to establish that the Michigan Legislature is the exclusive
state entity vested with authority to prescribe regulations for federal
congressional elections, barring citizen-initiated direct-democracy amendments
that circumvent the legislative process.
-
Asserting Candidate-Led Standing Under Bost: Utilizing active federal
congressional candidates as lead plaintiffs to eliminate historical prudential
standing defenses, establishing that candidates suffer concrete, individualized
Article III injury when subjected to unconstitutional state voting regimes.
-
Invalidating Unconstitutional State Amendments: Declaring the federal
election provisions of Michigan 2018 Proposal 3 and 2022 Proposal 2
unconstitutional and unenforceable against federal contests because neither
measure received legislative approval or passed through the bicameral
lawmaking process.
-
Enjoining Executive Overreach: Restraining Governor Whitmer, Secretary of
State Benson, and state election directors from implementing, funding, or
enforcing non-legislative ballot amendments in federal elections.
-
Securing Durable National Precedent: Taking the case through the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and to the U.S. Supreme Court to
establish a national precedent that shields federal elections from being
restructured by state-level petition drives.
Team
Erick G. Kaardal
Contact Me: (612)-341-1074
Education University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois J.D. - 1992 Harvard College Honors: magna cum laude Honors: U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship Major: Economics Bar Admissions Minnesota Wisconsin U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. District Court District of Minnesota U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court Northern District of Iowa U.S. District Court District of Idaho U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Tax Court Representative Cases Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (U.S. Supreme Court victory 5-4), 2002 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (U.S. Supreme Court victory 7-2), 2018 Honors Outstanding Contribution to the Cause of Liberty, Institute for Justice Minnesota Lawyer, Lawyer of the Year, 2018 Life Legal Defense Foundation "Defender of Life" Award Winner – 2021 Pro-Bono Activities Republican Party of Minnesota, Past Secretary/Treasurer John Adams Society, Past Chairman Minnesota Chapter of the Federalist Society, Advisory Board Member Past Positions Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, PA - since January 1, 2000 Trimble & Associates, Ltd., Associate Attorney, 1994-1999 Faegre & Benson, Associate Attorney, 1992-1994 U.S. Army Reserves, Minnesota and Illinois National Guard, Field Artillery Officer, Captain (retired)
.jpg)
Elizabeth Nielsen
Contact Me: (612) 979-9791
Education University of Illinois College of Law, Illinois J.D. - 2022 Honors: magna cum laude Honors: Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy Honors: Paul M. Lisnek Award for Excellence and Ethics in Trial Advocacy Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois B.A. - 2014 Honors: summa cum laude Honors: Chancellor’s Scholar Major: Political Science Major: Theater Minor: French Bar Admissions Minnesota Michigan Pennsylvania U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit U.S. District Court District of Minnesota U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan
About: Project Pitch
When states allow popular referendums to rewrite election codes without the
participation of the state legislature, the constitutional structure governing the United
States Congress is undermined. In Michigan, special-interest ballot drives pushed
through Proposal 3 in 2018 and Proposal 2 in 2022, fundamentally transforming the
rules governing absentee ballots, registration deadlines, and ballot handling. Neitherenactment was ever authored, debated, amended, or approved by the Michigan
Legislature.
The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution explicitly delegates the regulation of
congressional elections to each state's "Legislature thereof". While earlier federal claims
brought by individual state legislators faced difficult standing thresholds over institutional
injury, the Supreme Court's ruling in Bost establishes that federal congressional
candidates have personal, concrete standing to challenge the unlawful legal rules
governing their races.
This project launches a direct federal challenge in Michigan on behalf of nominated U.S.
Congressional candidates. By suing state executive and election officials in federal
district court, our litigation directly challenges the constitutionality of using citizen ballot
proposals to bypass the Legislature in federal contests. Your contribution directly funds
the complaint filing, preliminary injunction practice, evidentiary hearings, and appellate
briefing required to secure an enforceable judgment confirming that only the Legislature
may write the rules for federal elections.
Organization Information
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.: https://www.mklaw.com/
Platform Sponsor: isuegov.com
Milestones
Milestone 1: Federal Complaint, Injunction Motion & Candidate Standing Defense
Status: Active
Filing the candidate-led civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2201, and 2202
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Briefing and arguing
motions for preliminary injunction and defeating state motions to dismiss by establishing
candidate standing under Bost and merits claims under the Elections Clause.
Monetary Hurdle: $175,000 (Estimated Trial Court Legal Fees & Litigation Costs)
Milestone 2: Sixth Circuit Appeal & Precedent Enforcement
Briefing and arguing the merits before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to
obtain a binding appellate holding that state citizen-ballot initiatives cannot usurp the
constitutional role of state legislatures in regulating federal elections.
Monetary Hurdle: $54,000 (Appellate Briefing, Oral Argument, and Federal Motion
Practice)