Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a last-ditch federal lawsuit Thursday in an effort to get his name off Michigan’s presidential ballot. That’s as local clerks are already finalizing ballots for printing.

Kennedy exhausted his appeals in Michigan courts before turning now to federal courts — even though the state’s legal deadline to get ballots to printers is passed. Angela Benander, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told the Michigan Public Radio Network the filing will not change current plans.

“Clerks are currently in the process of printing ballots to ensure absentee ballots will be delivered to voters by the federal deadlines,” said Benander. She said those deadlines ensure absentee ballots are in the mail to overseas and military voters in time for them to be returned and counted.

The Michigan Supreme Court on Monday held Kennedy’s name would remain on the ballot, which settled the matter in state courts.

Kennedy has had mixed results in having his name stricken from ballots in states where he has already qualified. He suspended his campaign last month and endorsed former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee.

Michigan Secretary of State said Kennedy waited until it was too late to withdraw as the nominee of the Natural Law Party of Michigan. Kennedy sought and accepted the minor party nomination as a way to get on the Michigan ballot. Withdrawing now would leave the party without a presidential candidate.

But in the lawsuit filed Monday with the U.S. District Court for Michigan’s eastern district, Kennedy argued the state is violating his constitutional freedom of speech and freedom of association rights.

“Keeping Mr. Kennedy off the ballot will also cause no harm to the public,” said Kennedy’s filing. “Conversely, leaving Mr. Kennedy’s name will serve only to mislead voters, upend election and ballot integrity…”

In the filing, Kennedy also complained that he is being held to a different standard than President Joe Biden, who exited the presidential race on July 21 and cleared the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to be nominated.

But there is a critical distinction. Biden was in the race and the presumptive nominee prior to stepping aside. But he was never formally nominated and, thus, never accepted the nomination.

Harris was waiting in the wings when Biden withdrew his name from consideration following a disastrous debate performance against Trump. She was formally nominated by the Democratic National Convention on August 6th, which placed her on Michigan’s ballot.

The state will now have an opportunity to respond to Kennedy’s lawsuit and motion to remove his name. But the court does not have to accept the case or take any other action.

Supporters of increasing the state’s minimum wage and earned sick leave received a ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday that’s in their favor. This week on MichMash, host Cheyna Roth and Gongwer News Service’s Alethia Kasben sat down with Crain’s Detroit Business senior reporter Dave Eggert to discuss the ramifications of the ruling on the state’s businesses. 

Subscribe to MichMash on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

In this episode:

• The origins of the adopt and amend legislative tactic
• The future of minimum wages in Michigan
• Michigan businesses’ reaction to the increase in minimum wage and earned sick leave

The Michigan Legislature’s controversial “adopt and amend” tactic refers to the legislature adopting a ballot measure before allowing it to go to voters and then amending it significantly during the legislative session.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling on Wednesday found that the legislative tactic — used by the Legislature in 2018 to gut a voter-approved ballot initiative to increase the state’s minimum wage — was “unconstitutional” because it circumvented the petition initiative process.

“It was very controversial in the moment. The legislature at the time was controlled by Republicans,” Eggert said. “Ballot initiatives generally are thought to generate extra turnout, particularly on those issues, probably for Democrats; for Republicans and business groups, they feel like the laws were unwieldy.”

The ruling, which will allow for an increase to the state’s minimum wage and tipped minimum wage — as well as an expansion of the state’s earned sick time laws — will have a big impact on local businesses.

Some critics of those changes suggest exemptions for small businesses.

“Do they go and try to go back to exempting all businesses with 50 or fewer employees? That could be a pretty tough lift in the Democratic-led legislature” Eggers said.

The new minimum wage law will take effect in February 2025. 

More from WDET:

• How Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling on minimum wage, sick leave will affect workers and businesses
• Michigan Supreme Court sets stage for minimum wage boost
• Karamo forcibly removed from Michigan GOP convention; party chooses Fink, O’Grady for state Supreme Court

More from Gongwer:

• Impossible Or Inevitable? Adopt-And-Amend Fallout Continues

Minimum wage workers in Michigan are in line for a big pay raise in February under a ruling Thursday from the state Supreme Court.

A 4-3 Supreme Court majority held that legislative Republicans in 2018, using “an unprecedented and unconstitutional act,” undermined Michigan voters’ rights to initiate and adopt laws. The decision will likely boost the current $10.33 hourly wage above $12 next year.

“What the court confirmed is the people’s right to petition is more than political, it is sacred,” said Chris White, director of the Restaurant Opportunities Center of Michigan, which represents food service workers. “It’s a victory and it puts us on par with other states that are increasing their minimum wage and we’re very, very, very thankful with what the Supreme Court has decided.”

In 2018, two petition campaigns gathered enough signatures to put questions on the ballot. One would have boosted the state minimum wage and phased out a lower minimum wage for workers who get tips, and the other would have required most employers to allow workers to accrue earned sick leave. Both questions were considered very likely winners that would also draw Democrats and progressive voters to the polls.

Republican legislators, who controlled the House and the Senate at the time, held their own votes on the initiatives and adopted the measures to prevent them from going to the ballot. The Supreme Court agreed that was constitutional.

But the court held the violation occurred when the Legislature returned after the election and, in the 2018 lame duck session, altered the provisions to delay and scale back minimum wage and paid sick leave requirements to address complaints from business groups. The new versions were adopted with simple majorities. Waiting until future sessions would have required three-quarter supermajorities.

“In stopping the Republican Legislature from denying Michigan’s voters the ability to vote for these popular ballot measures, our Supreme Court has returned the power to petition the government to the people of Michigan,” said Mark Brewer, one of the attorneys who argued the case.

The dissent argued that there is no specific prohibition in the Michigan Constitution to the Legislature’s “adopt-and-amend” scheme.

Business groups bemoaned the majority decision.

“These changes will impact nearly every business across Michigan,” said Wendy Block with the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. “We are preparing for the harsh realities of this decision that jobs will be lost and some businesses will be forced to close because of this unprecedented decision.”

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled this week that its 2020 decision — which held that former property owners were entitled to the profits of tax foreclosure sales — can apply retroactively.

That means the “windfall profits” generated by the foreclosing county treasurer would be returned to the previous landowners.

Since Detroit has a complicated history with homeownership, this ruling strikes at the heart of poverty and inequality in the city. Yet, it may not provide the intended restorative justice for Detroit residents. For example, landlords who bought a property through tax foreclosure but then lost it to the same process, could argue they are owed the windfall profits rather than the original owner. 

Alex Alsup, vice president of research and development for Regrid — a property data and location intelligence company — Detroit Free Press and BridgeDetroit reporter Nushrat Rahman, and United Community Housing Coalition Director Ted Phillips joined Created Equal on Wednesday to discuss what this new ruling means for homeowners, the government, and how it’ll affect issues like land speculation. 

Subscribe to Created Equal on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Guests

Alex Alsup is vice president of Research and Development for Regrid, an intelligence company that specializes in gathering information about land parcels across the United States. He shares concerns about who this court decision actually benefits. 

“I think that the ruling in Rafaeli and the [one the] other day are cast as some sort of ‘justice’ for homeowners who lost their homes to tax foreclosure. [Though] there are enormous amounts of restorative justice that’s due to them, but I do not think these rulings amount to anything like that for Detroit homeowners,” he said.

Nushrat Rahman is an economic mobility reporter for the Detroit Free Press and BridgeDetroit. She says this ruling will also impact county coffers — where the excess profit is held after a house sells in auction. 

“I talked to the Michigan Association of Counties, and they said that they don’t know the fiscal impact at this point. They’ve advised their counties to prepare for this because [they] don’t know where the money’s coming from,” she said.

Ted Phillips is the director of the United Community Housing Coalition. He says the people who are going to most benefit from this ruling are investors.

“It seems ironic that if some of these investors did make a bad play on certain properties and lose them for more than what the taxes were, that they would now be able to recoup that money while skirting taxes for all these other years,” he said.

Listen to Created Equal with host Stephen Henderson weekdays from 9-10 a.m. ET on 101.9 WDET and streaming on-demand.

DETROIT (AP) — Michigan’s policy of putting people on a sex-offender registry even if their crime was nonsexual is unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court said Monday.

In a 5-2 decision, the court said a portion of a 2021 law is “cruel or unusual punishment” barred by the Michigan Constitution.

A Wayne County man in 2015 was convicted of holding his wife and two children at gunpoint for hours. After his release from prison, he would face 15 years on the sex-offender registry because his unlawful-imprisonment conviction involved minors.

“Although defendant’s offense was undoubtedly severe, that offense contained no sexual element and no indication that defendant poses a risk of committing sexual crimes in the future,” Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement said.

“Defendant is not personally or morally responsible for having committed a sex offense, and yet SORA treats him as if he is,” she said, using an acronym for the registry.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan estimates there are roughly 300 people on the registry for nonsexual crimes.

In dissent, Justice Brian Zahra said dozens of states have a similar policy. He said the Michigan law empowers the public and is not a punishment.

“The majority opinion ignores that countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety. … Registration provides vital information for the parent who must choose a babysitter or entrust a child with a volunteer coach,” said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano.

Story by Ed White, Associated Press 

The Michigan Supreme Court said Monday its 2020 decision stopping local governments from keeping profits from the sale of foreclosed homes can be applied retroactively.

Subscribe to the Detroit Evening Report on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

The decision means anyone who lost their home due to unpaid taxes prior to 2020 — when the decision was made — could receive any money made by the county on the sale of their foreclosed home.

Previously, counties had been able to keep all money made from a foreclosure sale, even if the sale far exceeded the amount of unpaid property taxes.

Christina Martin, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation who argued the case for former property owners, told the Associated Press that local governments were “essentially stealing from people.”

“It doesn’t matter if it’s going to be expensive to pay them back,” she said. “They have to pay them back.”

The Supreme Court in 2020 said the practice violated the Michigan Constitution.

Writing for the court, Justice Brian Zahra said the case “involves governmental violation of the constitutional rights of numerous individuals.”

He said “we are not without sympathy” toward communities that kept the surplus cash because state law had allowed it.

“Nonetheless, while the problem originated with the Legislature,” Zahra wrote, “at the foundation of our government is the precept that no state officer or local government can justify a constitutional violation on the basis of a statutory directive.”

The Michigan Municipal League, which represents local governments, says complying with the ruling could cost local governments hundreds of millions of dollars, and communities should not be penalized for following what was allowed under law. 

Associated Press reporter Ed White contributed to this report.

Other headlines for Tuesday, July 30, 2024:

• Leaders within the Asian American community are celebrating a $1 million investment into Detroit’s former Chinatown neighborhood.
• The Belle Isle Aquarium will have extended hours of operation during the month of August thanks to a $10,000 contribution from Comerica Bank.
• American Indian Health and Family Services is hosting a free traditional Native American powwow in Detroit this weekend, in collaboration with Wayne State University. 

Do you have a community story we should tell? Let us know in an email at detroiteveningreport@wdet.org.