Whether the State defendants were entitled to an emergency stay of the district court’s order declining to enforce the number of signatures necessary to get a proposal on the ballot; In re Flint Water Cases; Service Employees Int’l Union Local 1 v. Husted; Daunt v. Benson; Louisiana-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prod., Inc.; Nken v. Holder; DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. Small Bus. Admin.; Likelihood of success on the merits; Whether the burden on plaintiffs’ access to the ballot was “severe”; Anderson v. Celebrezze; Burdick v. Takushi; Esshaki v. Whitmer; Thompson v. DeWine; Request for en banc review of whether the Anderson-Burdick framework should apply to ballot initiatives’ signature requirements; Schmitt v. LaRose; Committee to Impose Term Limits on OH Supreme Court & to Preclude Special Legal Status for Members & Employees of OH Gen. Assembly v. Ohio Ballot Bd.; Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker (10th Cir.); Marijuana Policy Project v. United States (D.C. Cir.)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] In an order, the court denied defendants-State of Michigan officials an emergency stay of a district court order that ruled the State’s refusal to suspend the signature requirements for proposed ballot initiatives during the pandemic violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs, proponents of a criminal-justice reform initiative that stalled when the Governor’s “stay-at-home” orders went into effect, requested that the State put aside the signature requirements during the pandemic. When the State refused, they sued in district court, alleging that “the combination of the stay-at-home order and the signature requirement violates the First Amendment by creating a severe restriction on their access to the ballot.” The district court agreed and enjoined enforcement of the signature requirement. The State proposed an extension of the time in which to gather signatures, which the district court rejected. It then moved for an emergency stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. The court reviewed the requirements for a stay and held that defendants were not likely to succeed on the merits. It rejected their argument that the district court erred by ruling that the burden put on plaintiffs’ access to the 2020 general election ballot was “severe” under the Anderson-Burdick framework, which is applied to cases involving First Amendment challenges to ballot-access restrictions. The court held that the burden placed on plaintiffs was “identical” to those held to be severe in Esshaki, and that defendants’ reliance on Thompson was misplaced. It then held that defendants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the district court erred by refusing their proposed remedy—extension of the petition deadline—where the proposed extended deadline effectively granted, at most, a 35-day extension. The court noted that the State requested an en banc review to consider the argument that the Anderson-Burdick framework should not apply to ballot initiative signature requirements, which was under consideration.