MI Senator Jim Runestad (R) is a hero. He is one of only a handful of Michigan Senators who actually care about election integrity in the must-win state of Michigan.
Senator Runestad recently identified a scheme by Michigan’s dirty SOS Jocelyn Benson and her Director of Elections Jonathan Brater, who, only a few months ago, was the chair of the dirty so-called “voter roll clean up” organization ERIC. The scheme, identified by Senator Runestad, essentially involved using a back door approach to push through laws BEFORE the November 2024 election that were passed by Democrat lawmakers to make it significantly easier to cheat elections. The new laws, as passed, are scheduled to go into affection in 2025.
“If Secretary Benson wants to be a lawmaker, she should run for the House or Senate. Until then, she should wait until bills become law before acting on them,” said Runestad, R-White Lake. “The secretary of state is supposed to follow the state constitution, not bypass it to change election laws at will.”
Runestad’s raising the alarm resulted in the Republican National Committee (RNC) sending Benson a scathing letter on Wednesday, urging her to cease all attempts to subvert the Legislature and state constitution.
Watch Senator Runestad explain the latest plot by Michigan’s dirty SOS to make her state’s election results much less transparent and untrustworthy:
Senator Runestad addresses the National Republican Committee’s recent threatened legal action over SOS Benson’s illegal rules.https://t.co/2Hk8ACpwTq pic.twitter.com/z1txKFGmqW
— Jim Runestad (@SenJRunestad) August 8, 2024
Senator Runestad explains:
Passed along party lines in June, Senate Bill 603 includes numerous controversial changes to election law, including prohibiting boards of canvassers from investigating claims of fraud. The bills were not granted immediate effect, meaning they will not become law until 90 days after the Legislature’s annual session ends, typically in December.
Despite the bill not taking effect until 2025, Benson’s Department of State asked the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) in a July 31 letter to allow for the immediate approval of rules that would implement many of its changes before the November general election.
“The secretary of state is trying to bypass the constitution to keep potential election fraud from being investigated by boards of canvassers in November,” Runestad said. “If the Legislature wanted these changes in effect for the general election, we would have granted the bills immediate effect. We didn’t. Jocelyn Benson doesn’t get to implement laws whenever she pleases.”
The RNC’s letter to Benson states, “It is contrary to those settled principles — and Constitutional separation of powers— to use the administrative rulemaking process to implement a statutory framework before it becomes effective.” The letter continues, “The RNC is committed to both free and fair elections and the rule of law. It hopes that the Bureau of Elections is too. It also hopes that the Bureau will not try to effectuate the proposed ruleset before SB 603 becomes effective.”
Here is a portion of the Aug. 7, 2024, letter from Election Integrity Counsel Luke Bunting to MI SOS Jocelyn Benson:
Dear Secretary Benson,
On behalf of the Republican National Committee (RNC), I am writing to request that you cease any attempt to adopt the proposed administrative ruleset (2024-18 ST; JCAR #24-32) before the upcoming general election on November 5, 2024, or at any other time prior to the effective date of Senate Bill 603, the statutory framework the proposed ruleset is designed to implement.
SB 603 significantly rewrites the portion of Michigan’s Election Law pertaining to recounts. The Legislature passed it on June 18, and the Governor signed it into law on July 8. But, because SB 603 was not given immediate effect, it does not go into effect until 91 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die for the 2024 regular session. The Legislature’s 2024 regular session remains ongoing, and there is no indication the Legislature is going to adjourn sine die in the near future. SB 603 will therefore not become effective until well after the November 5, 2024 general election. Instead, the current provisions of the Michigan Election Law will govern any recount proceedings arising in the aftermath of that election.
Among other things, SB 603 changes Michigan law governing recounts by:
(1) eliminating election fraud as the basis for a recount
(2) eliminating the investigative authority of boards of canvassers
(3). significantly changing the procedures by which recounts are conducted
In March 2024, apparently, in anticipation of SB 603 being passed, the Bureau of Elections began the rulemaking to implement SB 603’s changes to Michigan’s recount laws. Given that SB 603 was not given immediate effect, common sense—and the rule of law—would dictate that any rules implementing SB 603 would not become effective until SB 603 itself becomes effective—i.e., until 91 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
Instead, even though SB 603 itself will not go into effect until sometime next year, the Bureau of Elections is pressing forward with the rulemaking process to adopt rules effectively implementing SB 603 before the November election.
Indeed, on July 31, 2024, the final rule package was transmitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR). This is the last step in the rulemaking process. Further, there are news reports that, even though SB 603 will not go into effect until “next year,” the Director of the Bureau of Elections has said that “going through the administrative rulemaking process could allow the changes to take effect in time for the November general election.”
Indeed, the proposed ruleset recently transmitted to JCAR conflicts with current Michigan law in numerous ways, several of which are delineated below.
First, as a general matter, the proposed ruleset rescinds or strikes numerous aspects of the current administrative rules related to recounts that embody provisions of Michigan’s Election Law that will be repealed or eliminated.
Second, proposed Rule 168.908(2) provides that “(a) recount is an administrative process limited to determining the number of votes cast on ballots for each candidate seeking a particular office or determining the number of votes cast for or against a ballot question.” In contrast, current Michigan law gives boards of canvassers wide ranging investigative authority that extends, in certain circumstances, far beyond retabulating the ballots cast.
For example, MCL 168.869 provides that when a recount petition is filed, the appropriate board of county canvassers “shall…make an investigation of the facts set forth in the petition.” Similarly, MCL 168.872 provides that, when a recount petition alleges “any fraud, wrongdoing or violation of the law perpetrated or committed by any election inspector or inspectors or any other person in respect to (the) election for which (the) recount has been petitioned,” the board of canvassers with jurisdiction over the recount has authority to undergo a “full and complete investigation” if “there is probable cause to believe that there has been fraud, wrongdoing or a violation of the law in respect to (the) election for which said recount has been petitioned.” And, beyond that, MCL 168.885 provides that the board of state canvassers, any of its members, or county boards of canvassers “shall each have the right to subpoena any inspector of election, county officers or other person for any purpose as may be desired in connection with the matter of such recount.”
Finally, MCL 168.879 expressly states that allegations of fraud may form the basis for a recount by providing that a candidate for an office canvassed by the board of state canvassers “may petition for a recount” based on allegations that the candidate “is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass of the votes by the inspectors of election or the returns made by the inspectors of election, or by (a county or state board of canvassers)” and has “a good-faith belief that but for fraud and mistake, the candidate would have had a reasonable chance of winning the election.”
Third, proposed Rule 168.908(3) provides that if a board of state or county canvassers “receives a petition to conduct an investigation or an audit of the conduct of an election, a petition to assess the qualifications of electors participating in an election or the manner in which ballots are applied for or issued to electors, or a petition to do anything other than conduct a recount as described in this rule, the board of state canvassers or the board of county canvassers must deny that request for a recount.”
But, as noted above, MCL 168.872 and 168.879 expressly authorize recounts to be based on allegations of fraud, wrongdoing, or violations of the law related to the conduct of the election—and MCL 168.869 and MCL 168.872 expressly authorize investigations into those matters (i.e., exactly the sort of “investigation…of the conduct of an election” prescribed by the proposed rules). Similarly, MCL 168.862 and MCL 168.863 authorize recounts based on allegations of fraud or mistake in the canvass or returns of the votes by the election inspectors. Other provisions contemplate recounts based on fraud rather than mere mistakes in the tabulation of ballots. See also MCL 168.867(7). In sum, the current Michigan law expressly authorizes recounts—and investigations by boards of canvassers—based on allegations of fraud, wrongdoing, or legal violations related to the conduct of the election. Thus, the proposed Rules’ attempt to limit the scope of recounts to mere errors in tabulation and eliminate the board of canvassers’ investigative authority directly conflicts with the current statutory framework and, as such, is invalid.
Fourth, proposed Rule 168.910 states that the ballots in an unsealed ballot container or from an out of balance precinct may still be recounted “if there is a satisfactory explanation in a sworn affidavit demonstrating that the security of the ballots is preserved” and expressly provides that “(a)n explanation is satisfactory if the reason for the discrepancy does not affect the security of the ballots and demonstrates that a recount of the ballots will yield a reliable and accurate result.”
But, while MCL 168.871 allows the ballots in an unsealed ballot container or from an out-of-balance precinct to be recounted if the breaking, discrepancy, or difference is “explained to the satisfaction of the board of canvassers,” the statute does not impose any limits on how the board may be satisfied or what constitutes a satisfactory reason. Thus, the limits that the proposed rule places on a board of canvassers’ discretion to recount unsealed containers or out-of-balance precincts conflict with the intent of the Legislature expressed in MCL 168.871.
Fifth, proposed Rule 168.912(3) provides that “there is a presumption of regularity of action by early voting site precinct inspectors.”
But Michigan’s Election Law contains no such presumption. Indeed, the Election Law doesn’t provide any basis for giving more deference to the processing of early-voting ballots than the processing of absent-voter ballots or ballots cast in person on election day. So proposed Rule 168.912(3) is inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Election Law.
Sixth, proposed Rule 168.925 allows interested parties to ask the board of state canvassers for a de novo review of a decision by the representative of the board of state canvassers.
However, it provides that “the board of state canvassers shall accept petitions for a de novo review only for challenges that concern the determination of how a specific vote on a ballot for a candidate, or for or against a ballot question, is counted.” But, while MCL 168.871a also authorizes the board of state canvassers to conduct de novo review of a decision by a member or representative of the board of state canvassers, it does not provide any limitations on the scope or nature of challenges that the board of state canvassers must review. So, the limits that the proposed rule places on the board of canvassers’ review of challenges conflict with the intent of the Legislature expressed in MCL 168.871a. And that’s especially true given the proposed Rules’ other attempts to limit the scope of recounts to exclude matters not limited to a mistake in tabulation of a specific, identifiable ballot.
Finally, proposed Rule 168.925(12) authorizes boards of canvassers to “determine a challenge is frivolous” and, if so, “decline to consider the challenge.” Further, the proposed rule clarifies that a challenge is frivolous if it is “is not related to the tabulation of a specific, individual ballot.”
Yet again, the current version of Michigan’s Election Law contains no such distinction. That is, the Michigan Election Law does not authorize boards of canvassers to disregard challenges because they are deemed to be frivolous. Nor does the Election Law require challenges to be related to the tabulation of a specific, individual ballot. To the contrary, as noted above, the current version of the Election Law expressly authorizes challenges that are not tied to the tabulation of a specific, individual ballot.
The problem with the Bureau’s course of action is that SB 603 is not Michigan’s current statutory framework and will not be until it becomes effective 91 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die. By pushing to implement SB 603 via the rulemaking process before SB 603 becomes effective, the Bureau seeks to adopt rules that directly conflict with current Michigan law.
Put simply, the Bureau cannot do through the back door (rulemaking process) what the Legislature declined to accomplish through the front door (immediate effect). The solution is simple: the proposed rules would not run afoul of Michigan’s Election Law or Constitutional separation of powers if they are given the same effective date as SB 603.
The RNC is committed to both free and fair elections and the rule of law. It hopes that the Bureau of Elections is too. It also hopes that the Bureau will not try to effectuate the proposed ruleset before SB 603 becomes effective.
If the Bureau pushes ahead in its attempt to use the rulemaking process to supplant current Michigan law before the effective date of SB 603, the RNC will not hesitate to pursue legal action.
Best regards,
Luke Bunting
Election Integrity Counsel
Republican National Committee
Of course, these actions by Michigan’s dirty SOS Jocelyn Benson, who has been sued multiple times for ignoring election laws or thumbing her nose at the Constitution, are nothing new for anyone who’s been following the woman whose first campaign was funded by George Soros.
There is a reason why MI SOS Benson, who brags about her close friendship with the untrustworthy AZ Democrat SOS Katie Hobbs, has developed a reputation with voters and even clerks as possibly the most dishonest SOS in America.
