League Of Women Voters Of Michigan V Secretary Of State (2022)

Finally, as discussed earlier, we must examine “whether a particular law constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on voters’ exercise of their direct-democracy rights.” League of Women Voters, 508 Mich at 541.

Second, and relatedly, it has been recognized that under Const 1963, art 2, § 9, “[d]irect democracy in Michigan is a series of powers that the people have reserved to themselves from the legislature.” League of Women Voters, 508 Mich at 536.

Our Supreme Court has stated the test in Michigan for resolving the question of a judicial decision’s retroactivity as follows: “[T]here is a ‘threshold question whether the decision clearly establishe[s] a new principle of law.’ If a decision establishes a ‘new principle of law,’ we then consider three factors: ‘(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice.’…

Next, when a judicial holding establishes a “new principle of law,” we must continue the analysis by next taking into consideration the following three factors: “(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice.” League of Women Voters, 508 Mich at 565-566 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Our Supreme Court has stated the test in Michigan for resolving the question of a judicial decision’s retroactivity as follows: [T]here is a “threshold question whether the decision clearly establishe[s] a new principle of law.” If a decision establishes a “new principle of law,” we then consider three factors: “(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice.” …

On the other hand, we see no injustice to the state where plaintiff was terminated 2 The three factors to be considered by the Court are: “(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice.” League of Women Voters, 508 Mich at 565-566 (quotation marks and citations omitted). -5- in November 2021 and the lawsuit was filed a mere six months later in May 2022; theref…

Because the Kandil-Elsayed decision establishes a new principle of law, we must next consider three factors: “ ‘(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice.’ ” League of Women Voters, 508 Mich at 565-566, quoting Pohutski, 465 Mich at 696 .

This contention, however, is neither supported with any factual evidence, nor considered in anyway to be an “injustice.” (See ECF No. 50 at Pg ID 747 (citing League of Women Voters of Michigan, 975 N.W.2d at 865 (citation omitted) (“However, where injustice might result from full retroactivity, this [c]ourt has adopted a more flexible approach, giving holdings limited retroactive or prospective effect.”)).

See, e.g., League of Women Voters of Mich v Secretary of State, 508 Mich 520 , 535; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (“Our primary goal in construing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the intent of the people of the state 8 of Michigan who ratified the Constitution, by applying the rule of common understanding.