Michigan LGBTQ Nondiscrimination in State Civil Rights Law Initiative (2022)

Michigan LGBTQ Nondiscrimination in State Civil Rights Law Initiative
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic LGBT issues
Status Not on the ballot
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

The Michigan LGBTQ Nondiscrimination in State Civil Rights Law Initiative was not on the ballot in Michigan as an indirect initiated state statute on November 8, 2022.

The Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1976, prohibited discrimination on the basis of "religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status" in employment, housing, education, and access to public accommodations and services. The ballot measure would have defined sex to include "gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression;" therefore, the ballot measure would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. The ballot measure would have also defined religion to include "the religious beliefs of an individual."

Text of measure

Full text

The following underlined text would have been added to state law and struck-through text would have been deleted from state law:

37.2102 Recognition and declaration of civil right; action arising out of discrimination based on sex or familial status. Sec. 102. (1) The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right. (2) This section shall not be construed to prevent an individual from bringing or continuing an action arising out of sex discrimination before July 18, 1980 which action is based on conduct similar to or identical to harassment. (3) This section shall not be construed to prevent an individual from bringing or continuing an action arising out of discrimination based on familial status before the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection which action is based on conduct similar to or identical to discrimination because of the age of persons residing with the individual bringing or continuing the action. 37.2103 Definitions Sec. 103. As used in this act: (a) “Age” means chronological age except as otherwise provided by law. (b) “Commission” means the civil rights commission established by section 29 of Article V of the state constitution of 1963. (c) “Commissioner” means a member of the commission. (d) “Department” means the department of civil rights or its employees. (e) “Familial status” means 1 or more individuals under the age of 18 residing with a parent or other person having custody or in the process of securing legal custody of the individual or individuals or residing with the designee of the parent or other person having or securing custody, with the written permission of the parent or other person. For purposes of this definition, “parent” includes a person who is pregnant. (f) “National origin” includes the national origin of an ancestor. (g) “Person” means an individual, agent, association, corporation, joint apprenticeship committee, joint stock company, labor organization, legal representative, mutual company, partnership, receiver, trust, trustee in bankruptcy, unincorporated organization, the state or a political subdivision of the state or an agency of the state, or any other legal or commercial entity. (h) “Political subdivision” means a county, city, village, township, school district, or special district or authority of the state. (i) "Sex" includes gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. (i) (j} Discrimination because of sex includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature under the following conditions: (i) Submission to the conduct or communication is made a term or condition either explicitly or implicitly to obtain employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing. (ii) Submission to or rejection of the conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor in decisions affecting the individual's employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing. (iii) The conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment, public accommodations, public services, educational, or housing environment. (k) "Religion" includes the religious beliefs of an individual.

Support

Fair and Equal Michigan led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.

Supporters

• Ann Arbor City Council

Arguments

• Trevor Thomas, co-chair of Fair and Equal Michigan, said, "Every Michigander should have an equal chance at success, without threat of being fired, harassed, or demoted just because the boss doesn’t like that they’re gay or transgender. After waiting 37 years, this effort gives the legislature eight additional months to pass these basic human rights. If they can’t get the job done, our Constitution affords Michiganders the right to vote to ensure that workers are judged on the job they do, not who they are or who they love."

Opposition

Opponents

• Michigan Pastor's Alliance

Arguments

• R. B. Ouellette, pastor emeritus at First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, said, "Far from promoting fairness or equality, this initiative deliberately targets religious institutions and people of faith. It attempts to coerce them to violate deeply held faith-based beliefs."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

Process in Michigan

In Michigan, the number of signatures required to qualify an indirect initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 8 percent of votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election. Signatures older than 180 days are invalid, which means all signatures must be collected within a 180-day window. Petitions for initiated statutes must be filed 160 days prior to the election. Successful initiative petitions are sent to the legislature, which then has 40 days to pass the proposed law. If the legislature does not approve the initiative, it goes on the ballot. If the legislature approves the initiative, it becomes law without needing the signature of the governor.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2022 ballot:

• Signatures: 340,047 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was June 1, 2022.

Signature petitions are filed with the secretary of state and verified by the board of state canvassers using a random sample method of verification.

Stages of this initiative

The campaign Fair and Equal Michigan filed a petition with the State Board of Canvassers on January 7, 2020. The State Board of Canvassers voted to approved the petition on January 28, 2020, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures.

On April 13, 2020, Steven Liedel, legal counsel for Fair and Equal Michigan, said the campaign was transitioning to gathering electronic signatures due to the coronavirus pandemic. He said, "There's no requirement that it be a manual signature. (Or) that it be in ink or that a pen be used or that it be personally affixed to the petition paper. ... I've not had any indication that said it can't be done, from anyone in government."

On May 26, 2020, campaign co-chairperson Trevor Thomas said just under 180,000 signatures would be filed on May 27. However, Judge Cynthia Stephens extended the deadline to at least June 3, 2020, on May 27, giving Fair and Equal Michigan additional time to file signatures.

Thomas said, "The Stay-at-Home orders, while important to public safety, shut down all traditional canvassing right when our campaign was nearing peak operational capacity - which is about 50,000 signatures plus per week."

On October 13, 2020, the campaign filed 483,461 signatures. On July 8, 2021, the Bureau of Elections reported that about 299,000 signatures were projected as valid based on a 500-signature sample. At least 340,047 needed to be considered valid. Fair and Equal Michigan challenged the bureau's findings. Attorney Steven Liedel, representing the campaign, said, "What essentially happens next is a bunch of election geeks get in a room, the staff at the bureau, lawyers for both Fair and Equal Michigan and the opponents and hash out what we believe make the case for what is and isn’t a valid signature." The Michigan Board of State Canvassers agreed to give the campaign until its meeting on July 26, 2021, to challenge the bureau's projected number of valid signatures. On July 26, the Board of State Canvassers voted 4-0 to decline certification of the ballot initiative on the basis of an inadequate number of signatures.

Fair and Equal Michigan v. Benson

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Are the signature requirement and circulation time for the ballot initiative unconstitutional due to the state action through coronavirus-related Stay-at-Home executive orders?
Court: Michigan Court of Claims
Ruling: Judge Cynthia Stephens ruled that the requirement that signatures are valid for 180 days was suspended between March 23 and June 1, 2020—the period of the state's Stay-at-Home order. Therefore, signatures collected before March 23, 2020, would remain valid for an additional 69 days beginning on June 1. Judge Stephens did not grant the campaign's other requests, such as decreasing the number of signatures required or extending the filing deadline.
Plaintiff(s): Fair and Equal Michigan, Sen. Adam Hollier, and Rep. Mari Manoogian	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Director of Elections Jonathan Brater, and Michigan Board of State Canvassers

  Source: Michigan Court of Claims

Coronavirus pandemic
Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more. Political responses overviewState reopening plansDocumenting America's Path to RecoveryElection changesChanges to vote-by-mail and absentee voting proceduresFederal responsesState responsesState executive ordersStay-at-home ordersMultistate agreementsNon-governmental reopening plansEvictions and foreclosures policiesTravel restrictionsEnacted state legislationState legislative session changesSchool closuresState court closuresInmate releasesLocal government responsesDiagnosed or quarantined politiciansBallot measure changesArguments about government responsesThe 1918 influenza pandemicPandemic Response Accountability CommitteeUnemployment filingsLawsuitsBallotpedia's polling on the coronavirus pandemicSubmit

Fair and Equal Michigan, along with Sen. Adam Hollier (D-2) and Rep. Mari Manoogian (D-40), filed a legal complaint in the Michigan Court of Claims on May 26. Fair and Equal Michigan argued that executive (Stay-at-Home) orders related to the coronavirus pandemic prevented the campaign from collecting signatures. The campaign asked the court to (1) suspend the filing deadline for petitions, (2) relax the constitutional signature requirement, and (3) suspend the ban of using signatures that are more than 180 days old. Fair and Equal Michigan said that the orders had the effect of limiting the campaign's in-person signature drive to 45 days. In Michigan, campaigns have 180 days to collect signatures.

On June 10, 2020, Judge Cynthia Stephens ruled that the requirement that signatures are valid for 180 days was suspended between March 23 and June 1, 2020—the period of the state's Stay-at-Home order. Therefore, signatures collected before March 23, 2020, would remain valid for an additional 69 days beginning on June 1. Judge Stephens wrote, "In ordinary times this challenge would fail because there is a legitimate if not compelling state interest in play. However, for 69 days the people of the state were ordered to ‘stay at home’ except for activity that was necessary to sustain or protect human life or health. Violation of this imperative was a misdemeanor." Judge Stephens did not grant the campaign's other requests, such as decreasing the number of signatures required or extending the filing deadline for initiatives to appear on the ballot in 2020 beyond May 27, 2020.

Since Judge Stephens did not grant the request to extend the filing deadline beyond May 27, 2020, submitted signatures would count toward getting the initiative on the ballot for 2022, unless the legislature approved the initiative first. Fair and Equal Michigan released a statement, which read, "The Court of Claims recognized that COVID-19 impacted the fundamental constitutional rights of our nearly 200,000 supporters. The ruling by Judge Cynthia Stephens validates the voices of supporters and their signed canvassed petitions will apply to the next election cycle in 2022."

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• LGBT issues on the ballot

Michigan

• Michigan ballot measures
• Michigan ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls