Michigan Judge Dismisses Case Against Fake Trump Electors, Raising Concerns Over Election Accountability
A demonstrator waves a Trump flag at the Michigan State Capitol during a rally organized by the group Election Integrity Fund and Force on Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2021. Source: AP News.
On Sept. 9th, a Michigan case ruling against 16 Republicans who illegally attempted to certify a victory by Donald Trump in the 2020 election was dismissed. The dismissal of this case presents a major blow to prosecutorial efforts occurring nationwide to hold Trump and his allies accountable for attempting to overturn the election results.
This case raises urgent questions about judicial independence and the future of election integrity in the United States. In this article, I will examine the initial charges brought against the Michigan Republicans, analyze Judge Simmons’s reasoning for dismissing the case, and highlight the reactions from legal experts. Additionally, I will explore the broader implications of this ruling for ongoing cases throughout the country and for the stability of democratic processes in future elections.
The case was initially brought to the courts in July 2023 by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. The defendants included Kathy Berden, the head of the Republican National Committee’s Michigan chapter, along with Meshawn Maddock, the former co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party, and Stan Grot, the Shelby Township Clerk. One of the defendants had their criminal charges dropped after reaching a deal with the attorney general’s office.
Each individual was charged with eight felony counts, including forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery, on the assertion that the group of Republicans had falsely claimed to be Michigan’s “duly elected and qualified electors” for president and vice president of the 2020 election. The top charges would carry a penalty of up to 14 years in prison. Documents that Nessel released showed that the defendants, among other Trump electors, gathered at the Republican Party state headquarters and signed documents claiming that they were the rightful electors, all while the certified electors actually met at the State Capitol. These charges came on the same day that President Trump claimed federal prosecutors made him aware that he was a target of their investigation into the January 6th attack on the Capitol, which was eventually dismissed as well.
After a two-year court battle, District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons dismissed the case, claiming that prosecutors had failed to prove that there was intent to defraud the state. Simmons asserted that the defendants believed that there were some serious irregularities with the election or the voting, and that the group was not “savvy or sophisticated enough to understand fully the electoral process.” Additionally, she stated that their actions were defended by their First Amendment right to petition the government to seek redress. Michigan Republicans were thrilled with the dismissal of the case, as its long journey through the court was the state’s most combative attempt yet to seek accountability and justice for the defendants' failed efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Judge Simmons is an appointee of Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer, making the ruling more striking because it cut against partisan expectations. Even in a highly charged political case, Simmons exhibited judicial independence to uphold what she saw as the defendants’ fundamental rights. Various law professionals have provided insight on Simmons’ ruling; Anthony Michael Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor, noted that these election cases are uncommon in the sense that the criminal justice system is not fully equipped to handle them yet, especially due to the fear of retaliation and threats to judges who handle cases in which the president is involved. Rick Hasen, law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that the failure of the prosecutions, along with Trump avoiding liability and the pardons he granted to those convicted of crimes on January 6th, creates poor incentives for a system of honorable elections and peaceful transitions of power.
Michigan is one of many states, including Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona, that have filed charges against fake electors. Although these cases have not reached trial yet, Michigan sets the precedent for their potential outcomes. Michigan is a crucial swing state, and Democrats celebrated when Joe Biden won by a little over 2% of the state’s vote in 2020. The efforts of the sixteen Michigan Republicans to overturn these results present a dangerous future for the integrity of future elections, especially in swing states. Many are fearful that the dismissal of the case could embolden future attempts to sabotage elections; Nessel herself tweeted, “If we don’t hold the people involved in the alternate elector scheme accountable, there is literally nothing to stop them from doing this again because there will have been no repercussions for it.” Without consequences, there is very little stopping anyone, not just politicians, from attempting to compromise the 2026 and 2028 elections.
The dismissal of Michigan’s case against the fake electors highlights just how fragile accountability can be when the basis of democracy itself is on trial. Without meaningful consequences, people will be emboldened to continue to attempt to undermine election results. As these cases continue to unfold around the country, courts and citizens together must demand clear standards that protect electoral integrity and ensure fair transfers of power. The future of our democracy depends not on hoping the system holds, but on actively defending it.