Court: Dem Secretary of State’s 2022 poll challenger rules broke Michigan law.
Michigan Court of Appeals Rules Against Secretary of State’s Guidance on Poll Challengers
In a groundbreaking decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals has declared that the guidance issued by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, regarding poll challengers during the 2022 midterms violated state law. The court’s ruling, which was unanimous, reaffirmed a previous trial court ruling and ordered that the guidelines be revised or rescinded.
The plaintiffs in the case, which include election challengers, the Michigan Republican Party, state legislature candidates, and the Republican National Committee, argued that Benson’s guidance went beyond her supervisory authority and imposed unnecessary restrictions on poll challengers.
Benson’s updated guidance required individuals to fill out a new form to become poll challengers and imposed restrictions on communication and the use of electronic devices in absentee ballot counting areas. The court determined that these regulations should have been issued as properly promulgated Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rules.
Despite the trial court’s ruling in October 2022, Benson sought to keep the guidance in place for the November midterms. The Michigan Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats, allowed the unlawful guidance to be used, disregarding the objections of dissenting justices who agreed with the trial court’s analysis.
This is not the first time Benson has been found to have violated Michigan law. In a separate case in March 2021, a judge ruled that she broke state law by issuing unilateral orders on absentee voting during the 2020 election.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood.
Why did the poll challengers challenge the Secretary of State’s guidance?
Ho challenged the Secretary of State’s guidance, argued that it went beyond the authority granted to her by state law. They contended that the guidelines imposed unreasonable restrictions on poll challenger activities, impeding their ability to protect the integrity of the voting process.
In response, the Secretary of State’s office defended the guidance, asserting that it was necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of polling locations and to prevent voter intimidation. They argued that the guidelines were consistent with the state’s election laws and aimed to uphold the principle of fair elections.
The Court of Appeals, however, was not convinced. In its ruling, the court held that the Secretary of State’s guidance was indeed in violation of state law. The court pointed out that while the Secretary of State has the authority to issue guidelines, those guidelines must be consistent with the powers conferred upon her by the legislature. According to the court, the guidelines issued by Secretary Benson exceeded her authority and restricted the activities of poll challengers in a manner not permitted by law.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the importance of adhering to the legal framework set forth by the legislature. It serves as a reminder that elected officials must operate within the confines of the powers granted to them by law and cannot impose restrictions or regulations beyond what is authorized.
Furthermore, the court’s decision underscores the vital role that poll challengers play in ensuring the integrity of the voting process. Poll challengers serve as watchdogs, monitoring the conduct of elections and identifying any irregularities or potential fraudulent activities. Their presence helps create transparency and instill confidence in the fairness of the electoral system.
It is important to note that this ruling does not invalidate the role of the Secretary of State in issuing guidelines. Rather, it reaffirms the principle that such guidelines must be within the scope of authority granted by the legislature.
In response to the court’s ruling, Secretary Benson’s office has stated that they will comply with the decision and take appropriate action to revise or rescind the guidelines. It remains to be seen how these changes will affect future elections in Michigan.
Overall, the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision serves as a significant milestone in the ongoing debate over the role of poll challengers and the authority of elected officials in shaping election procedures. It underscores the need for a careful balance between facilitating fair elections and safeguarding the rights of individuals to participate in the electoral process.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
