Case: Bormuth v. Johnson
2:16-cv-13166 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Filed Date: Sept. 1, 2016
Closed Date: Aug. 1, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case alleging election interference and election mismanagement in Michigan.
On September 1, 2017, plaintiff, a former Democratic primary candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives who lost the 2016 election by a wide margin to a candidate backed by the local Democratic party, filed this suit in the Eastern District of Michigan. He alleged that the Michigan Secretary of State wrongfully denied his recount petition and implemented a series of unconstitutional measures related to the filing of campaign finance disclosure documents.
Plaintiff alleged there was manipulation of voting machine tallies that had occurred, since his final vote count was 420 votes, a number associated with marijuana. He also took issue with comments made to him by poll workers on the day of the election, which made him suspect that he was being discriminated against. However, when he sought a re-count, the state denied this, on the basis that the number of votes of difference between him and the next candidate was too large for there to be an effect on the outcome.
Plaintiff also alleged that he had been told on June 1, 2016 that he had to file a campaign finance disclosure form by July 22, 2016. On July 22, when he attempted to fill out the form on the computer, he ran into difficulty. On July 25, he e-mailed a state employee, who told him he could fax the form and he did so. However, the next day, he was informed that his faxed form was not acceptable and he would have to file the form electronically. Mr. Bormuth indicated that he believed he had properly filed the form by fax and would not be refiling. He alleged that the refusals to accept his faxed campaign finance disclosure form and refusal to perform the vote recount were based on Christian bias against him as a pagan.
Plaintiff also made equal protection claims. He alleged that he was protected as being elderly and lacking technological skills. These are not protected classes, which the Plaintiff later conceded. He later contended that he is a member of a suspect class because he is Pagan and has only modest financial resources.
On September 30, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
On January 10, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision on March 2, 2018.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Matthew Gerber (4/8/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5479969/parties/bormuth-v-johnson/
Edmunds, Nancy Garlock (Michigan)
Bormuth, Peter (Michigan)
Barton, Denise C. (Michigan)
Fedynsky, John G. (Michigan)
Fracassi, Adam L.S. (Michigan)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5479969/bormuth-v-johnson/
Last updated April 13, 2026, 4:32 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 1, 2016
Closing Date: Aug. 1, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff was a former Democratic primary candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives who lost the election.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Ruth Johnson and Bill Schuette
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Michigan 2:16-cv-13166
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Bormuth v. Johnson, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/44977/ (last updated 4/8/2024).