Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD WEISER and THE MICHIGAN ) Case No.

REPUBLICAN PARTY, )
) Before the Hon.
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity ) RELIEF
as Secretary of State )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Mr. Ronald Weiser and the Michigan Republican Party (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their

counsel, file this Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Jocelyn

Benson, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the Michigan

Secretary of State’s “Recall Exception” to Michigan’s campaign contribution limits as constituting

a violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right of Free Speech and Fourteenth Amendment right

to Equal Protection.

2. In a much-anticipated and hotly-debated gubernatorial race, Governor Gretchen

Whitmer’s campaign has recently decided to suborn, accept, and retain contributions from her

supporters in excess of the legal limits established by the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (the

“MCFA”), specifically in MICH. COMP. LAWS § 169.252. To excuse her evasion of Michigan’s

contribution limits, Governor Whitmer’s campaign has attempted to recast the 2022 Michigan

gubernatorial race as a recall campaign rather than a reelection campaign. Indeed, faced with a

1
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 17

robust field of viable Republican opposition candidates, Governor Whitmer’s campaign pretends

that the real question on the ballot is whether she will be recalled, not whether she will be reelected.

This disingenuous maneuvering is simply an effort to position her reelection campaign within the

narrow and rarely-applied contours of the Recall Exception, through which Governor Whitmer’s

campaign is circumventing the contribution limits that apply to all the other candidates in the

gubernatorial race.

3. Unfortunately, Governor Whitmer’s maneuvering comes at a constitutional price.

By allowing the Governor to invoke the Recall Exception to circumvent the contribution limits

that apply to all the other candidates, Secretary Benson will violate the Free Speech rights and

Equal Protection rights of Republican donors as well as every Michigan Republican voter and

candidate. This is a violation that cannot be overlooked and a constitutional price that cannot be

paid.

4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy the constitutional violations

created by Michigan’s Recall Exception and to permanently enjoin the Secretary of State from

recognizing or following that Exception and any corresponding interpretive statements or

declaratory rulings that impinge upon Michigan citizens’ rights to Free Speech and Equal

Protection under the laws.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

5. Plaintiff Ronald Weiser (“Weiser”) is a resident of Washtenaw County, Michigan,

and is registered and eligible to vote in the State of Michigan. For years, Weiser has supported the

Michigan Republican Party (“MRP”) generally as an entity, and MRP’s candidates individually,

in their efforts to win election or appointment to federal, state, and local offices. Weiser has often

2
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 17

contributed the maximum amount permissible under the MCFA to individual Republican

candidates for office. Weiser is concerned that the war-chest the Whitmer campaign has filled with

illegal excessive contributions accepted under the guise of the Recall Exception will be used by

the Whitmer campaign not in a recall election, but in her reelection effort. For that reason, Weiser

would immediately and willingly contribute more than $7,150 to multiple Republican candidates

for Michigan Governor if such contributions were legally permissible.

6. Plaintiff MRP is a “major political party” as defined in Section 16 of the Michigan

Election Law. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.16. MRP is headquartered at 520 Seymour Street,

Lansing, Michigan 48912. MRP is organized to promote Republican values and assist candidates

who share those values in winning election or appointment to federal, state, and local offices.

During the current election cycle, MRP members will participate in fundraising and donation

efforts for multiple Republican candidates for Governor, and they wish to continue to do so to the

fullest extent allowed by the MCFA. In addition, MRP as an entity will participate in fundraising

and donation efforts for the campaign of the Republican nominee opposing Whitmer, and it wishes

to continue to do so to the fullest extent allowed by the MCFA. MRP brings this action on behalf

of itself and its members.

DEFENDANT

7. Defendant Jocelyn Benson is Michigan’s Secretary of State (“Secretary Benson”)

and is named in her official capacity. Secretary Benson is Michigan’s chief election officer under

MICH. COMP. LAWS § 169.215, and therefore has the authority to apply and enforce the provisions

of the MCFA that are the subject of this action.

3
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 17

JURISDICTION & VENUE

8. Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, and under federal statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

9. This Court is vested with original subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’

constitutional causes of action in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343.

10. This Court is the proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

(a) all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ causes of action

occurred within the Western District of Michigan, and (b) Defendant’s primary office is located in

Ingham County, which is within the Western District of Michigan.

11. This Court is authorized to consider Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, FED. R. CIV. P. 57, and the general legal and equitable powers of

this Court.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

THE NATURE OF MICHIGAN’S 2022 GUBERNATORIAL RACE

12. Michigan is currently preparing for its next general gubernatorial election on

November 8, 2022. Candidates are fundraising and campaigning to garner support for their

candidacy and the political views they represent. In particular, the Michigan gubernatorial race has

pitted Michigan’s incumbent Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, against a broad field of

potential Republican challengers.

13. As the gubernatorial race has gained momentum, candidates on all sides have

redoubled their efforts to raise funds and support for their campaigns. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff

MRP has made every effort to garner support for its candidates and to amplify their policy and

4
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 09/20/21 Page 5 of 17

political messages to the greatest extent possible. MRP’s efforts as an organization have been

seconded by the individual efforts and contributions of its members, including Plaintiff Weiser.

14. Plaintiffs are concerned by the over $6 million war-chest the Whitmer campaign

has built through its acceptance of millions of dollars of contributions in amounts greatly

exceeding the $7,150 contribution limit found in Michigan law. Plaintiff Weiser and many other

Republican donors would personally contribute more than $7,150 to Republican gubernatorial

candidates if such contributions were legally permissible.

15. By contrast, in July 2021, Governor Whitmer’s campaign filed a quarterly report

detailing the contributions that it received in that reporting period. The report indicated that

Governor Whitmer’s campaign received contributions in excess of $7,150 from 119 individual

donors, in a combined amount of approximately $3.4 million. Such contributions exceed the legal

limit established in the MCFA, which caps individual contributions to campaigns for statewide

elected officials at $7,150 per person. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 169.252(1)(a).

16. To justify its brazen flaunting of the MCFA, Governor Whitmer’s campaign has

invoked the Recall Exception, asserting that, because she is technically the target of some (albeit

lackluster) recall committees, her reelection campaign is actually a campaign against her recall and

therefore not subject to Michigan’s campaign contribution limits.

THE “RECALL EXCEPTION” TO THE MCFA’S CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

17. The Recall Exception was originally formulated in an interpretive statement issued

by the Michigan Secretary of State in response to the Honorable William Faust on October 7, 1983.

See Exhibit A. The Exception was later administratively promulgated in a declaratory ruling

issued by the Michigan Secretary of State in response to L. Brooks Patterson on January 3, 1984.

See Exhibit B.

5
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 09/20/21 Page 6 of 17

18. As stated in the Patterson Declaratory Ruling, the Recall Exception declared that

the contribution restrictions in the MCFA “cannot be construed as applying to contributions

received by the candidate committee of a state elective officeholder facing a recall election.” Ex.

B at 2. The Secretary’s reasoning behind the rule was that an officeholder fighting an active recall

campaign should be able to accept contributions to the same level allowed for a political committee

seeking recall of the officeholder. In other words, the Secretary reasoned that because recalls are

pursued through political committees that are not subject to the contribution limits of MICH. COMP.

LAWS § 169.252, an officeholder facing an active recall election should not be subject to such

limits either.

19. While the Secretary of State adopted this rule almost three decades ago, the

Secretary has not applied the Recall Exception in the context of a gubernatorial campaign. There

is no case law in Michigan courts that defines the limits, nuances, or contours of the rule. It is an

administrative rule that has never been tested for its constitutional integrity.

20. This is the rule that Governor Whitmer’s defenders have invoked to justify her

decision to ignore the otherwise clear contribution limits under the MCFA.

THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY WITH GOVERNOR WHITMER’S CAMPAIGN

21. In response to this alarming development, on August 10, 2021, the Michigan

Freedom Fund filed an official complaint with the Office of the Michigan Secretary of State

pursuant to MICH. COMP. LAWS § 169.215(5)–(6), alleging that Governor Whitmer’s campaign is

in violation of the MCFA. See Exhibit C.

22. As detailed in Section 169.215(5), within 5 days following the Michigan Freedom

Fund’s submission of its complaint, a copy of the complaint must have been sent to Governor

Whitmer’s campaign. Within 15 days following receipt of that complaint (or 30 days for good

6
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 09/20/21 Page 7 of 17

cause shown), the Whitmer campaign had the opportunity to respond to the allegations of the

complaint, and Secretary Benson was required to provide a copy of any such response to the

Michigan Freedom Fund. If such a response was made, the Michigan Freedom Fund as the

complainant is allowed time to file a rebuttal. Otherwise, the Secretary’s Office is required to post

its decision on the matter on its official website.

23. Since August 10, 2021, Governor Whitmer’s campaign has been allowed to keep

the excessive contributions raised and Secretary Benson’s Office has not forced disgorgement or

otherwise offered an indication of its decision as to the complaint. The Secretary’s refusal to make

a timely decision, however, actually constitutes a decision. Plaintiffs are harmed every minute that

Whitmer is allowed to keep and potentially spend these funds. The tacit position of the Secretary’s

Office indicates, in effect, that Secretary Benson accepts the Whitmer campaign’s justification for

exceeding the contribution limits and endorses the application of the Recall Exception in these

circumstances.

24. The procedural provisions of the MCFA add weight to Secretary Benson’s decision

not to find a violation and pursue a proper resolution. According to MICH. COMP. LAWS

§ 169.215(17), “there is no private right of action, either in law or in equity, under this act.” For

every Michigan voter, “the remedies provided in [the MCFA] are the exclusive means by which

this act may be enforced and by which any harm resulting from a violation of this act may be

redressed.” Furthermore, the criminal provisions and penalties of the act “may only be enforced

by the attorney general and only upon referral by the secretary of state.” Simply stated, when

Secretary Benson allows Governor Whitmer’s campaign to invoke the Recall Exception as a

pretext to ignore the contribution limits found in Michigan law, there is no cause of action under

the MCFA by which Michigan voters can seek redress.

7
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 09/20/21 Page 8 of 17

25. Thus, by applying the Recall Exception and failing to enforce the MCFA in a

constitutional manner, Secretary Benson leaves every Republican gubernatorial candidate—and

the donors who wish to express their political speech by supporting them—at a distinct

disadvantage. Secretary Benson’s decision prevents individual Michigan Republican voters from

supporting their candidates to the same level and extent as that enjoyed by their Democrat

counterparts who have supported Governor Whitmer with contributions far in excess of the

contribution limits under the MCFA. Furthermore, it leaves these voters without any

administrative or state remedies for these violations of their constitutional rights.

26. Given the unconstitutionality of the Recall Exception, Secretary Benson’s refusal

to reject the application of the Recall Exception to Governor Whitmer’s campaign, and the

immediate harm that has and will continue to result from Governor Whitmer’s invocation of the

Recall Exception, Plaintiffs file this action to assert their rights of Free Speech and Equal

Protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE’S RECALL

EXCEPTION VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON ITS FACE.

27. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

28. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that “Congress

shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. CONST. AMEND. 1. This guarantee

has been extended through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to protect all citizens of the United States against

anyone who seek to abridge this constitutional right “under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage.” The Recall Exception is a rule adopted by the Michigan Secretary

of State that violates Freedom of Speech on its face.

8
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 09/20/21 Page 9 of 17

29. In essence, the Recall Exception allows an incumbent candidate’s supporters to

enjoy an unlimited level of political speech without any contribution restrictions, while any

challenging candidate’s supporters must limit their political speech to the levels permitted by

Michigan’s campaign contribution caps.

30. The Recall Exception constitutes a substantial burden on the free speech rights of

any incumbent-challenging candidate by limiting their ability to “mount[] effective campaigns

against incumbent officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability.” Randall v. Sorrell,

548 U.S. 230, 248–49 (2006).

31. Moreover, the Recall Exception inevitably guts the political significance of a

“recall” in two ways. First, the rule renders the recall process a sham by incentivizing incumbents

to establish faux recall petitions against themselves. If the mere existence of a recall petition

against an incumbent is sufficient to exempt them from all campaign contribution limits, then every

incumbent will be tempted to instigate the existence of a recall petition against themselves in order

to claim the Exception. Second, the rule creates a chilling effect on future political speech and

activity. To that end, if pursuing the recall of an incumbent suddenly allows the incumbent to

accept unlimited contributions otherwise barred by the MCFA, the voters who oppose the activities

and policies of that incumbent will be deterred from expressing their political opinions through a

recall petition for fear of destroying the campaign viability of their preferred candidates. In either

case, the Recall Exception subverts the political process and distorts the essential power and effect

of free political speech.

32. Because of the burden imposed by the Recall Exception, this rule will only pass

constitutional muster if it is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. See id. at 249.

The only explicit state interest cited by the Michigan Secretary of State in the Patterson Declaratory

9
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 09/20/21 Page 10 of 17

Ruling is the concern to ensure that contributors on all sides of a political campaign are subject to

the same contribution limits. Far from being narrowly tailored to protect this interest, the Recall

Exception creates situations where it harms the very interest that it purports to protect by allowing

incumbents to raise unlimited contributions while their challengers are bound by the limits of

MICH. COMP. LAWS § 169.252.

33. The Supreme Court has “never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes

different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other, and [such a]

scheme impermissibly burdens [the contribution-limited candidate’s] First Amendment right.”

Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 738 (2008). The Recall Exception is a scheme that

does exactly that: it imposes different contribution limits for candidates competing against each

other. And thus, it is an impermissible burden and facially unconstitutional.

COUNT II: THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE’S RECALL

EXCEPTION VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE.

34. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

35. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that “Congress

shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. CONST. AMEND. 1. This guarantee

has been extended through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to protect all citizens of the United States against

anyone who seek to abridge this constitutional right “under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage.” The Recall Exception is a rule adopted by the Michigan Secretary

of State that violates the Plaintiffs’ Freedom of Speech as applied to them in the circumstances

underlying this action.

36. Applying the Recall Exception in the current gubernatorial race leads to the absurd

result of the Democrat-incumbent candidate being allowed to raise unlimited contributions while

all of her Republican-opposition candidates are only allowed to raise contributions under the limits
10
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 09/20/21 Page 11 of 17

of the MCFA. In other words, Democrat-Party principles and values may be supported with a blank

check, while Republican-Party principles and values are capped at $7,150 per person. This is the

quintessence of viewpoint discrimination. It is an attempt to dictate a political outcome in the

Democrats’ favor by skewing the Republican candidates’ ability to fund their political fight.

37. The injurious impact of this rule is not hypothetical; the facts are already a matter

of public record. Citing the Recall Exception, Governor Whitmer’s campaign has raised at least

$3.4 million in campaign contributions from 119 donors, each giving more than $7,150 to her

campaign—that is nearly 4 times the amount that any Republican candidate has been allowed to

accept from an equivalent number of donors. Under the limits of the MCFA, it would take more

than 475 donors to raise the same amount for any of Whitmer’s challengers. This is an egregious

burden on all Michigan Republicans’ right of Free Speech, and there has not been even a pretense

of compelling state interest provided to support the application of the Recall Exception in the

current circumstances.

38. When the Recall Exception was originally adopted in the Patterson Declaratory

Ruling, the then-serving Secretary of State declared that “[t]he Secretary of State has an obligation

to administer [the MCFA] in a constitutional fashion and to implement the statute so as to avoid

absurd results.” See Ex. B at 3. Applying the Recall Exception in this case leads to an absurd result

and is blatantly inconsistent with the Secretary of State’s obligation to administer the law in a

constitutional manner.

COUNT III: THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE’S RECALL

EXCEPTION VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
ON ITS FACE.

39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

11
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 09/20/21 Page 12 of 17

40. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that “[n]o

State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S.

CONST. AMEND. 14, Sec. 1. This guarantee has been extended through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to protect

all citizens of the United States against anyone who seek to deny this constitutional right “under

color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.” On its face, the Recall Exception

violates Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection rights by creating a loophole that allows an incumbent

candidate facing a recall to enjoy greater privileges under the MCFA than any opposition

candidate.

41. The Recall Exception was originally intended to create an even-handed standard

that would subject those seeking a recall and those opposing recall to the same contribution

restrictions. In fact, the Secretary of State recognized that imposing different standards on

candidates competing in the same election “would subject the [MCFA] to a challenge on

constitutional grounds.” See Ex. B at 3. This is fundamental to the concept of equal protection

under the law: parties in the same circumstances are accorded the same legal protections and

privileges. And yet, ironically, the Recall Exception creates the very inequity that it was ostensibly

intended to remedy.

42. The Supreme Court has upheld various limitations placed on individual political

contributions as consistent with the compelling state interest of preventing corruption and

manipulation of the electoral system. See Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 388

(2000) (applying Buckley v. Valeo to contribution limits on state-office elections and holding that

“the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption was found to be a constitutionally

sufficient justification” of such limits). On the contrary, the Supreme Court has “consistently

rejected” campaign finance restrictions that attempt to “‘level the playing field,’ or to ‘level

12
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 09/20/21 Page 13 of 17

electoral opportunities,’ or to ‘equalize the financial resources of candidates.’” McCutcheon v.

Fed. Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185, 207 (2014). Thus, a constitutionally sound campaign finance

system will seek to deter corruption without creating unequal impacts or causing disparate

treatment among the affected candidates.

43. The Recall Exception turns the Supreme Court’s guidance on its head. Rather than

impose equal contribution limits on all candidates to protect the compelling state interest of

preventing corruption, the Recall Exception imposes selective limits on some candidates to allow

candidates facing recall special privileges in raising support for their campaigns. This rule restricts

one class of candidates for the purposes of securing a compelling state interest, and it unleashes

another class of candidates for the purposes of promoting an illegitimate state interest.

44. Thus, on its face, the Recall Exception violates Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection rights

and creates disparate standards for candidates campaigning in the same race. This is

unconstitutional.

COUNT IV: THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE’S RECALL

EXCEPTION VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE.

45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

46. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that “[n]o

State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S.

CONST. AMEND. 14, Sec. 1. This guarantee has been extended through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to protect

all citizens of the United States against anyone who seek to deny this constitutional right “under

color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.” As applied in this case, the Recall

Exception violates Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection rights by allowing Governor Whitmer to accept

13
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 09/20/21 Page 14 of 17

contributions and raise political funds that could potentially result in criminal prosecution if

accepted or raised by any of her Republican challengers.

47. The Equal Protection problems with the Recall Exception are especially evident

when it is applied, as here, in the midst of a general election for statewide office, rather than strictly

in relation to a vote on a particular recall petition that does not coincide with a general election. If

Governor Whitmer were merely facing a recall election in which she was actively opposed by a

political committee, then the application of the Recall Exception might not result in an unequal

impact among candidates. After all, the political committee she would be facing in that scenario

would also be free from contribution restrictions under the MCFA. See Ex. B at 1–2. But that is

not the case here. Governor Whitmer is facing a broad field of individual candidates who are

seeking to fill the same office for which she seeks reelection, and each of these candidates and

their supporters are subject to the contribution limits of the MCFA. Thus, applying the Recall

Exception in this election creates an unequal legal impact in Governor Whitmer’s favor rather than

ensuring an equal legal impact for her protection. And in so doing, the Recall Exception violates

Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection rights.

COUNT V: PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF FROM THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE’S
APPLICATION OF THE RECALL EXCEPTION.

48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

49. For Plaintiffs to demonstrate they are entitled to temporary injunctive relief, they

must satisfy three elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying

constitutional claims, (2) a likelihood that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, and (3) a balance of equities and public interests in Plaintiffs’ favor. See Roman

Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S.Ct. 63, 66 (2020) (citing Winter v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

14
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 09/20/21 Page 15 of 17

50. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims because

of the nature of the rights involved, the severity of the burden placed upon their rights by the Recall

Exception, and the failure of the Secretary of State to provide any evidence of compelling state

interests in support of the adoption and application of the Recall Exception.

51. Plaintiffs are already experiencing ongoing irreparable harm from Secretary

Benson’s refusal to protect their constitutional rights. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for

even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427

U.S. 347, 373 (1976). The war-chest Governor Whitmer has built through unlimited campaign

contributions accepted under pretense of the Recall Exception has immediately and irreparably

impacted Plaintiffs’ rights of Free Speech and Equal Protection. Plaintiffs’ voices are being drown

out by the financial megaphone given to Governor Whitmer’s campaign by virtue of the Recall

Exception, and Plaintiffs’ efforts to present their own political positions are being stymied by

unequal treatment under the law.

52. Finally, the balance of equities and the public interests weigh unmistakably in the

Plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs’ entire case is an effort to ensure an equitable application of the MCFA

to all parties involved in the gubernatorial race. The only legitimate state interests at play in this

case are those that support the imposition of contribution limits to prevent corruption, not those

that support an unequal application of contribution limits to even the playing field for a candidate

who faces a recall petition coincident with the general election. These considerations weigh

heavily in favor of Plaintiffs’ request for this Court to maintain the status quo of applying the

MCFA’s contribution limits to all candidates equally for the duration of this case and the

gubernatorial race.

15
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 09/20/21 Page 16 of 17

53. Because Plaintiffs satisfy all three elements of the applicable test, they are entitled

to temporary injunctive relief in this action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for temporary

injunctive relief and enter an order restraining Secretary Benson’s application of the Recall

Exception pending a final decision of this action.

Plaintiffs also request this Court to order a speedy hearing of this declaratory-judgment

action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 57.

Upon completion of such hearing, Plaintiffs request this Court to enter judgment in their

favor and award the following declaratory and injunctive relief:

(a) a declaratory judgment that the Recall Exception violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the

First Amendment of the United States Constitution;

(b) a declaratory judgment that the Recall Exception violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution;

(c) a permanent injunction that prohibits the Michigan Secretary of State from applying or

implementing the Recall Exception in the upcoming gubernatorial election;

(d) an award of all Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses; and

(e) any other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity.

Dated: September 20, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

By: /s/ Charles R. Spies

Charles R. Spies
Michigan Bar No. P83260
Robert L. Avers
Michigan Bar No. P75396
Adam T. Walton

16
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 09/20/21 Page 17 of 17

Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming

123 W. Allegan Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Tel: (517) 371-1730
Fax: (844) 670-6009
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

INHULSEN LAW PLC

John Inhulsen
Michigan Bar No. P69137
3351 Claystone Street SE, Suite 104
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
Tel: (616) 747-0000
[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

17
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-1, PageID.18 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT A
Secretary of State’s Interpretive Statement to William Faust
(10/07/1983)
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-1, PageID.19 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-1, PageID.20 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-1, PageID.21 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 4
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-2, PageID.22 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT B
Secretary of State’s Declaratory Ruling to L. Brooks Patterson
(01/03/1984)
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-2, PageID.23 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-2, PageID.24 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-2, PageID.25 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 4
 Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.26 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT C
Michigan Freedom Fund’s Complaint to Secretary of State
(08/10/21)
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.27 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.28 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.29 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.30 Filed 09/20/21 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.31 Filed 09/20/21 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.32 Filed 09/20/21 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.33 Filed 09/20/21 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-3, PageID.35 Filed 09/20/21 Page 10 of 10
 $25HY6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ0,:'5HY
Case 1:21-cv-00816 ECF No. 1-4, PageID.36 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 1

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Ronald Weiser and The Michigan Republican Party
&DVH1R
+RQ
72 Jocelyn Benson, in her official capacity as
Y
$''5(66 Michigan Secretary of State
Jocelyn Benson, in her official capacity as Secretary of 430 W. Allegan
State Lansing, MI 48933

3/$,17,))253/$,17,))¶6$77251(<1$0($1'$''5(66
$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX
Robert L. Avers (P75396)
Dickinson Wright PLLC
<28 $5(+(5(%<680021('DQGUHTXLUHGWR  VHUYH
123 W. Allegan Street
XSRQSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQ Lansing, MI 48933; 517-371-1730
XQGHU5XOHRIWKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUHZLWKLQ [email protected]
GD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXP PRQVRQ\ RXQRW &/(5.2)&2857
FRXQWLQJ WKHGD\  \RX UHFHLYHGLW,I\ RX IDLO WR UHVSRQG
MXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHI
GHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW<RXPXVWDOVRILOH\RXUDQVZHU
RUPRWLRQZLWKWKH&RXUW
7KH&RXUWKDVRIILFHVLQWKHIROORZLQJORFDWLRQV

)HGHUDO%XLOGLQJ0LFKLJDQ6W1:*UDQG5DSLGV0,
32%R[)HGHUDO%XLOGLQJ0DUTXHWWH0,
)HGHUDO%XLOGLQJ:0LFKLJDQ$YH.DODPD]RR0,
)HGHUDO%XLOGLQJ:$OOHJDQ/DQVLQJ0,

%\'HSXW\&OHUN 'DWH

PROOF OF SERVICE
7KLVVXPPRQVIRU Jocelyn Benson, as Secretary of State ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ 
QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ GDWH

,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW
SODFHZKHUHVHUYHG
RQ
GDWH

,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK DSHUVRQ
QDPH

RIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUHRQ DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVV
GDWH

,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ ZKRLVGHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFH
QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO

RISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI RQ 
QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ GDWH

,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH 
2WKHU (specify) 

0\IHHVDUHIRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI 
,GHFODUHXQGHUWKHSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH
'DWH
Server’s signature

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF
Server’s printed name and title

Server’s address