Judge Hands Down Second Injunction Against Michigan Law

The Michigan Legislature has worked to dismantle
workers' unions and control citizen access to governmentt.

The political climate in Michigan has been one of constant negativity since Rick Snyder became governor in that state in 2011. A Republican dominated legislature, working with the governor, has taken numerous steps to dismantle unions and control citizen access to government. In December of last year, the legislature passed and the governor signed a bill that did both at once.

PA 269 impinges on unions by preventing companies from collecting voluntary contributions and donating them to unions. Meanwhile, companies can do that in order to donate to organizations they belong to, like a chamber of commerce. This not only creates an obvious and unfair distinction created to favor businesses over workers, but according to the AFL-CIO impinges on unions’ freedom of speech. 

A second part of the law prevents the distribution of ballot information by local government officials, a “gag order” that essentially prevents citizens from know what issues they’ll be voting on before they get to the polls. Both are glaring violations of the spirit of democracy.

However, opponents of both portions of that law have won injunctions against it, with the view of preventing that law from operating while full legal challenges are mounted against it. In either case, the injunctions show that judges are confident in the ability of those cases to challenge that law. 

According to U.S. District Judge Linda A. Parker, who granted the injunction on behalf of unions, the law is “viewpoint discrimination,” and  unions stand a good chance of wining through a First Amendment or contract argument.

The State of Michigan, through Attorney General Bill Schuette, has claimed that payroll donations should not be considered free speech, but that sounds like a losing argument in a post-Citizens United world. Furthermore, unions have been collecting dues, legally, for the better part of a century, and the legality of suddenly removing that right will be a hard case to make.