agree, it finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue under the Elections and Electors Clauses.
- F. The Merits of the Request for Injunctive Relief
- 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The Court may deny Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief for the reasons discussed above. Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to analyze the merits of their claims.
- a. Violation of the Elections & Electors Clauses
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Elections Clause and Electors Clause by deviating from the requirements of the Michigan Election Code. (See, e.g., ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 884-85, ¶¶ 36-40, 177-81, 937-38.) Even assuming Defendants did not follow the Michigan Election Code, Plaintiffs do not explain how or why such violations of state election procedures automatically amount to violations of the clauses. In other words, it appears that Plaintiffs’ claims are in fact state law claims disguised as federal claims.
A review of Supreme Court cases interpreting these clauses supports this conclusion. In Cook v. Gralike, the Supreme Court struck down a Missouri law that required election officials to print warnings on the ballot next to the name of any congressional candidate who refused to support term limits after concluding that such a statute constituted a “‘regulation’ of congressional elections,” as used in
30
