Eleven Republican lawmakers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to revive a lawsuit challenging Michigan election law ballot initiatives approved by voters in 2018 and 2022.

The federal lawsuit asserts the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause “mandates state legislatures to regulate federal elections,” and argues the ballot proposals circumvented that requirement to enshrine in the state constitution the most dramatic changes to state election laws in four decades.

“This issue is whether individual legislators have standing to bring Election Clause enforcement claims against state executive branch officials when the state legislature itself does not sue,” attorney Erick Kaardal, who is representing lawmakers, said in a statement.

The case, originally filed in September 2023, involves two Republican state senators and nine Republican members of the Michigan House of Representatives who sued Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and Michigan Bureau of Election Director Jonathan Brater.

It centers on ballot proposals in 2018 and 2022 that allowed same-day voter registrations without a valid proof of identity, a minimum of nine days and up to 29 days of early in-person voting, private funding for elections, and no-excuse absentee voting. The ballot proposals approved by voters amid a barrage of misleading advertising also changed in-person voting procedures, reduced the authority of county board of canvassers, and created an independent redistricting commission.

“This case is about whether the people’s representatives can speak on their behalf in response to blatant violations of the U.S. Constitution by state officials,” said William Wagner, attorney with the Great Lakes Justice Center and co-counsel on the petition. “The governor and Secretary of State say no. We, on behalf of the people’s representatives, say yes.”

Plaintiffs point to the Election Clause that states “The times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

A U.S. District Court dismissed the case over a lack of standing, but lawmakers appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, which affirmed the district court ruling in December.

The appeals court, however, found it was proper to litigate individual state legislators’ standing, a legal requirement that ensures only the proper, injured parties can file suit.

Because the initial case was dismissed due to an alleged lack of standing, the courts have yet to weigh in on whether the ballot initiatives violated the U.S. Constitution.

The District Court ruled only the House and Senate by mutual agreement or Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel have standing to sue, and lawmakers are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse that decision.

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

“If I, as a legislator, don’t have standing to say election laws are being passed without legislative approval, then who does?” said state Rep. Steve Carra, R-Three Rivers, a plaintiff in the case.

“What happens to our Constitutional rights if those who would undermine our elections find ways to usurp the Constitution’s protections, and no one has ‘standing’ to fight for those rights?” questioned House Speaker Pro Tempore Rachelle Smit, R-Martin, another plaintiff.

If granted, the U.S. Supreme Court would issue a writ of certiorari that requires lower courts to forward records on the case for review, a move that’s normally reserved for cases with national significance or those that would harmonize federal and state court rulings.

The SCOTUS typically issues less than 200 writs out of more than 7,000 petitions filed each year.

“The court needs to decide these important legal questions,” said plaintiff Sen. Jonathan Lindsey, R-Allen, “especially as they relate to responsibilities granted to the state legislatures by the United States Constitution. I am honored to play a role in this effort to restore the rule of law in Michigan.”

Others involved in the petition include Sen. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake, and state Reps. James DeSana, R-Carleton, Joseph Fox, R-Fremont, Neil Friske, R-Charlevoix, Matt Maddock, R-Milford, Brad Paquette, R-Niles, Angela Rigas, R-Caledonia, and Joshua Schriver, R-Oxford.

“The state legislators’ original complaint in federal court challenged the constitutionality of the 2018 and 2022 Michigan constitutional amendments because the statewide referendum changed election laws without legislative participation,” Kaardal said. “Now, this legally unauthorized tactic is being weaponized across the country.”

Patrice Johnson, chair of the Michigan Fair Elections Institute, noted Democrats and aligned groups are already plotting to use the ballot referendum process to change election law again in 2026.

“Outside actors know they can’t mislead legislatures to pass these election-integrity-killing laws, so they pour millions of dollars into running deceptive advertising campaigns to bamboozle voters into approving them,” Johnson said. “Now, these actors are trying to repeat the unconstitutional process and put Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot for 2026. We have to stop this. Now.”