A federal lawsuit aims to get enough votes counted to place the issue of recreational marijuana use on the November 2016 ballot. File photo

Two people who signed and circulated petitions for Michigan’s recreational marijuana vote have filed a federal lawsuit meant to stop the printing of November ballots until the signatures are counted.

They argue Michigan voters should decide marijuana legalization.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, Sept. 8, in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction against the Michigan Secretary of State and other defendants.

“This action seeks one outcome– to order defendants to not print any ballots until they canvass and count the petition signatures, including Plaintiffs’, and if enough, to place the MI Legalize proposal on the ballot of the next general election…”

MI Legalize wants Michigan voters to decide on legalization of marijuana for people 21 and older.

The group turned in 354,000 signatures, more than the total needed to qualify, but rules making signatures older than 180 days void and stale blocked it from the ballot.

Plaintiffs Sean Michael Myers and Dakota Blue Serna are both registered voters and signed petitions more than 180 days before they were filed with the state.

The federal lawsuit argues that the reubttle presumption, the statute that says signatures older than 180 days are presumed to void, is unconstitutional, as well as its use.

“The 1986 Board of Canvassers policy to utilize the rebuttable presumption, which all parties acknowledge has never been utilized and is impossible for Plaintiff to comply with, is unconstitutional,” the lawsuit reads.

It asks the court to expedite the lawsuit because of the election timeline, and with ballots being printed Friday, Sept. 9.

After MI Legalize turned in its 354,000 signatures, the legislature passed a law strictly enforcing the 180-day rule.

The federal suit argues there is still time for canvassing and the ballots to be printed with the marijuana ballot question included.

“Courts can rule expeditiously on elections cases, including ordering reprint of ballots,” it states.

It comes on the heels of a court battle that just ended in Michigan, as attorneys appealed the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court, both of which declined to hear arguments.

Attorney Jeffrey Hank, who represented MI Legalize in the state courts, said he is working on an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court with the same goal, of getting the signatures counted.

Attorneys filing the federal lawsuit did not immediately respond to request for comment.