Page:King v. Whitmer (20-13134) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/31

 the Elections Clause. 531 U.S. 510, 525-26 (2001) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1). In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that transferred redistricting power from the state legislature to an independent commission after concluding that “the Legislature,” as used in the Elections Clause, includes any official body with authority to make laws for the state. 576 U.S. 787, 824 (2015). In each of these cases, federal courts measured enacted state election laws against the federal mandates established in the clauses—they did not measure violations of enacted state elections law against those federal mandates.

By asking the Court to find that they have made out claims under the clauses due to alleged violations of the Michigan Election Code, Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that any alleged deviation from state election law amounts to a modification of state election law and opens the door to federal review. Plaintiffs cite to no case—and this Court found none—supporting such an expansive approach.
 * b. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause

Most election laws will “impose some burden upon individual voters.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992). But “[o]ur Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right [to vote].” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 559 (1964) (quoting Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1964)). Voting rights can be impermissibly burdened “by a