SGA fights for court case to remain in Detroit

An April 11 court hearing will determine the venue of a lawsuit against the state of Michigan filed by seven universities.
On Feb. 14, CMU's Student Government Association voted to count Central as a plaintiff in the lawsuit that aims to have the voter law, named Public Act 118, ruled unconstitutional. The law prevents Michigan residents from voting at an address different from the one on their drivers' licenses.
The suit was filed Feb. 24 in a Detroit federal court by the Michigan Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the universities. The defendant in the suit is the Department of State, headed by Secretary of State Candice Miller, and is represented by the Department of Attorney General.
The change of venue hearing is set for 10 a.m. April 11 at the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, in Detroit. Detroit is the southern division of the Eastern District while Bay City is the northern division.
The plaintiffs will try to keep the suit in the Eastern District, while the state would like to move the case to the Western District. The Western District includes Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and Lansing.
"It's more of a convenience more than any other concern," Chris De Witt, director of communications for the State Attorney General's office, said of the change of venue request.
"I think it will be heard in Detroit," said Mary Ellen Gurewitz, a Detroit attorney who represents the plaintiffs and works with the ACLU. "It's a convenient location for the case to be tried. And the plaintiffs' choice of venue should control where it is heard, according to case law."
Gurewitz said the ACLU acts as cooperating council for the plaintiffs. The Michigan Democratic Party, another of Gurewitz's clients, is also helping in the case.
Other schools in the lawsuit include Ferris State University, Grand Valley State University, Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and Western Michigan University.
People are affected by the suit "from Monroe to Houghton," Gurewitz said. "There are plaintiffs all over the state. There is no particular venue that is more appropriate, but in the Eastern District there are more judges to hear the case. I think it's simply a legal issue for the most part."
Public Act 118, derived from Senate Bill 306, was signed into law by Gov. John Engler on Sept. 21. The bill takes effect Saturday.
The plaintiffs argue Public Act 118 discriminates against college students who are more likely to have two addresses and who already vote at a low rate. Supporters of the act say it will help decrease voter fraud while cleaning up the state's voter files.
The act should be prohibited by the court, said SGA Sen. Joe McCarthy, Grand Ledge junior.
"It's clearly an unconstitutional violation of the Motor-Voter Act, which says you can't do what the state has done. It's also a federal statute and takes preferred position over any state statute," he said.
The National Voter Registration Act, often called the Motor-Voter Act, took effect on Jan. 1, 1995.
"It says it is not legal to put undue hurdles in front of the right to vote," said SGA Sen. Adam Woodruff, Beaverton junior.
The act states that the only reasons for removing a voter's name from an official voting list are: death of the voter; at the voter's request, or by notification that the voter has registered to vote at another address; by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity (if specified in state law); or when a change of address has been confirmed in writing by the applicant.
In addition, Public Act 118 infringes on the 14th Amendment, McCarthy said.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from applying the law unfairly and giving preference to one person or class of persons over another.
A motion for a preliminary injunction was also filed when the lawsuit was filed, asking for Public Act 118 to be enjoined, or prohibited, before the case is resolved, Gurewitz said. The judge hearing the motion to change venue on April 11 will also handle the hearing for the preliminary injunction.
Gurewitz said she doesn't expect the case to last too long.
"I'm hoping the matter will be resolved before school resumes in the fall, because voting registration becomes critical in the fall," she said. "I'm confident we'll get a resolution before then."
"It's really hard to make predictions," De Witt said. "We do feel the law is constitutional.
"If there are appeals the case could certainly last for an extended time. But it's impossible to know what the judge will do."
SGA Sen. Melissa Gill, Sterling Heights sophomore, represents CMU as a plaintiff in the case, along with SGA Sen. Windi Yager, Beaverton junior.
"I'm not positive what will happen, but I think we have the upper hand," Gill said.
Gill said she and Yager became involved in the case before the Michigan Chapter of the ACLU came aboard. A member of the U-M chapter had contacted SGA about participating, and SGA later discussed the case with the ACLU, Gill said.
CMU is one of the seven universities in the suit who have representatives as plaintiffs in the case, Gurewitz said. But not all of the schools have their own plaintiffs.
"The early universities coming into the suit have plaintiffs, and Central Michigan was involved very early. They have very active people involved," she said.
SGA keeps in touch with the ACLU through e-mails a couple of times a week about the case. McCarthy said Senate Bill 306 has also spurred SGA to form an ACLU chapter at CMU.