LANSING — Several Republican lawmakers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case to deem voter-approved election law changes as unconstitutional, including the creation of an independent citizen-led redistricting commission, as well as same-day voter registration, no-reason absentee voting and nine days of early voting.

The effort to challenge changes to voting laws in the Michigan Constitution is being pursued by two Michigan state senators and nine state representatives and has been tossed out of lower courts since the group filed in late 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

The lawmakers are requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court recognize the group’s individual standing to challenge changes to Michigan’s constitution that they say violate the Elections Clause in the U.S. Constitution which sets the mandate as a state legislature to prescribe the “times, places and manner of holding elections”.

“The legislators insist that the Elections Clause confers upon individual lawmakers a right to vote on federal election regulations and any deprivation of that right injures them,” the petition reads.

The effort is being led by state Sens. Jonathan Lindsey (R-Coldwater) and James Runestad (R-White Lake) as well as state Reps. James DeSana (R-Carleton), Rachelle Smit (R-Martin), Steve Carra (R-Three Rivers), Joseph Fox (R-Fremont), Matt Maddock (R-Milford), Angela Rigas (R-Caledonia), Josh Schriver (R-Oxford), and Brad Paquette (R-Niles), as well as former state Rep. for northern Michigan Neil Friske. Runestad is also the newly-elected chair of the Michigan Republican Party.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed late last year that as the U.S. and state constitution vest election law authority on the state legislature, individual lawmakers, not even supported by the majority of either chamber, do not have authority for a legal challenge in this case.

“They filed this lawsuit as individuals, not as approved representatives of their legislature. They do not allege that they passed election laws foreclosed by the 2018 or 2022 state constitutional amendments. And they do not allege that they command votes sufficient to pass contrary election laws in the future,” Federal Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote in an opinion in December 2024.

Sutton further argued that the proof for the lawmakers not being totally representative of the state Legislature is the fact that the Legislature itself has approved policies to carry out the measures approved by the people of Michigan.

In 2018, two-thirds of Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, which resulted in the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, as well as Proposal 3 establishing that any eligible voter can vote absentee or register to vote on Election Day, amongst other changes.

In 2022, about 60% of Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 mandating a minimum of nine days of early voting and allowing voters to be added to a list to automatically be sent absentee ballots each election, amongst other changes.

Many of the lawmakers involved in the legal battle challenging the voter-approved changes have been vocal about their support for President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was “stolen” and they have sounded alarm bells for future fraud under new voting rules.

The U.S. Supreme Court looks at a small percentage of the cases filed requesting its review.

Michigan voters have the right to petition and to vote to amend the state constitution, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a statement in response to the Republican lawmakers’ request to the U.S. Supreme Court. And even if the nation’s highest court were to take on the case, Benson said she would be ready to defend those rights.

“Michigan voters have a right to enact laws that reflect their values, and politicians have a duty to stand by the will of the voters. The idea that the time, place and manner of federal elections law-making is beyond the right of voters to self-determine is anti-democratic, and already multiple courts have reaffirmed this under law,” Benson said.