that she had authority to change the ballot applications, and that she is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. “The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits by citizens against a state in federal court.” League of Women Voters, 548 F.3d at 474. However, pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), a state official may be sued in his or her official capacity for purely injunctive relief. The Complaint in this case notes that it is against Defendant “in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State[.]” (Compl.) Plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief. (Compl. at 25-27.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims fit within the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See League of Women Voters, 548 F.3d at 475 (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s Eleventh Amendment argument does
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that the eleventh amendment applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law holding that the defendants were not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity where the plaintiffs claims showed chronic and ongoing election violations and sought only prospective relief