http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2007/11/mi-court-of-app.html

MI Court of Appeals reviews Presidential Primary

The fate of the January 15 presidential primary will be decided by the courts, not by the estimated 2.5 million Michigan voters who would participate in this election, and not by their elected representatives, the Legislature.  The Ingham County Circuit Court questioned the validity of keeping private which Party's primary each voter participated, and turning over this list only to the Democrat and Republican Parties.  So because of a list that could be purchased from the Secretary of State for less than $100, 2.5 million Michigan voters could be deprived of an election if the Ingham County Circuit Court ruling is not reversed or modified.

How is it that a list that does not even exist yet can possibly be the basis to prevent an election?  Using a legal term called "ripeness", are not we putting the cart before the horse here?  Is this not like two children fighting over dear Dad's Estate when Dad is still alive?  According to the United States Supreme Court, a claim lacks "ripeness", and there is no justiciable controversy, where "the harm asserted has [not] matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention ...."  This list does not exist until after the January 15, 2008 election, so how is this case "ripe" for review by the courts?  Why not have the election and then determine the fate of this list?  At least then, 2.5 million Michigan voters could participate in an election.

As the Michigan Republican Party pointed out in its pleadings filed in this case, a presidential primary has never been enjoined in the history of the State of Michigan.

Because of the devastating consequences of eliminating the presidential primary and the undisputed harm to the public interest that this action could cause, perhaps an intermediate step that the courts could take would be to put this list issue "on hold" until after the January 15 election.  Remember, only if the new presidential primary law is found to be invalid will the primary be eliminated.   Putting the issue on hold to analyze this in more detail or to give the Legislature more time to provide a legislative fix, is a sensible alternative to depriving Michigan voters from participating in an election.