On October 9, the MIGOP and RNC filed a lawsuit towards MI SOS Jocelyn Benson and Jonathan Brater, Director of the MI Bureau of Elections.
Though Jocelyn Benson has already misplaced ten lawsuits thus far, she continues to mock those that try and pressure her to comply with the regulation and instantly safe Michigan’s elections.
Shouldn’t a state’s high election official make it his or her accountability to make sure that each election official implements fundamental necessities like voter identification, verification of US citizenship, and signature and tackle verification? Don’t Michigan voters deserve the fitting to really feel comfy figuring out that dead voters are still listed as active voters on the voter rolls, exterior, third-party teams are usually not trying to register dogs, US Postal workers aren’t dropping off stacks of ballots in drop boxes in strict violation of the USPS rules, there are usually not more registered voters than eligible voters in 53 counties within the state of MI, election officials or workers are not manipulating voter rolls, and that eligible voters are allowed to vote ONCE in our elections?
Why would any Secretary of State battle to cease these safeguards from being applied?
On October 21, a Democrat Decide Sima Patel, a Democrat Governor Whitmer appointee, dismissed the MIGOP and RNC lawsuit towards MI SOS Jocelyn Benson and the MI Director of Elections, Jonathan Brater. The lawsuit merely requested for the 2 high election officers to comply with the MI Structure and confirm that ONLY Michigan residents can vote in our elections from abroad:
The Michigan Structure permits Michigan residents—and solely Michigan residents—to vote. See Const. 1963, artwork. 2, § 1 (“Each citizen of the US who has attained the age of 21 years, who has resided on this state six months, and who meets the necessities of native residence offered by regulation, shall be an elector and certified to vote in any election besides as in any other case offered on this structure. The legislature shall outline residence for voting functions.”)
The Michigan choose mentioned the lawsuit was an try and “disenfranchise” voters.
Curiously, the choose by no means talked about the tens of millions of MI voters, together with these serving in our US navy, whose votes are vulnerable to being canceled out by an unchecked system of voting solely accessible to abroad, non-military voters, who doubtlessly have the power to vary the end result of the elections in Michigan.
MI SOS Jocelyn Benson took to “X” to boast in regards to the choose’s choice whereas, on the identical time, deceptive Michigan voters into believing the lawsuit had something to do with “navy voters” in a submit on “X.”
She wrote: “A win for voters and democracy in the present day in Michigan!” including, “A federal court docket upheld our work to make sure navy service members and their households serving abroad can vote, rejecting the RNC lawsuit as an “eleventh hour try and disenfranchise these electors.”
I responded to her dishonest propaganda tweet with a chart exhibiting the massive disparity in numbers between abroad non-military in comparison with navy members and their households.
MOST of the UOCAVA voters are usually not US navy or members of the family.
The lawsuit was not aimed toward US navy members, as they DEFINITELY present ID & are legit residents of the state the place they vote.
You aren’t telling the reality Jocelyn Michelle Benson. pic.twitter.com/f2RwU6Unjk
— PattyMI (@PattyLovesTruth) October 22, 2024
This morning, the MI GOP and RNC appealed the choice of the MI Courtroom of Claims.
The enchantment to the MI Courtroom of Appeals filed by the MI GOP and RNC requests a choice no later than October 28, 2024, and states
The plaintiffs’ grievance shouldn’t be directed at MCL 168.759a. Somewhat, plaintiffs take difficulty with language within the Secretary of State Election Officers Guide allowing the topic group to register and vote in Michigan, even when they by no means personally resided in Michigan: Eligibility to register to vote utilizing the FPCA [federal postcard application] or FWAB [federal write-in absentee ballot]
To be eligible to register to vote utilizing the FPCA or the FWAB, the voter have to be absent from their jurisdiction of residence. If the voter is a civilian, the voter have to be dwelling exterior of the US and its territories. If the voter is a member of a uniformed service on energetic responsibility, a member of the Service provider Marine, or a Nationwide Guardsman activated on state orders, or if the voter is a dependent of a member of any of the listed organizations, the voter is eligible to register to vote utilizing the FPCA or FWAB no matter whether or not the voter is serving abroad or inside the US. Every UOCAVA voter should submit their very own FPCA or FWAB type.
A United States citizen who has by no means resided in the US however who has a mum or dad, authorized guardian, or partner who was final domiciled in Michigan is eligible to vote in Michigan so long as the citizen has not registered or voted in one other state.
Registration tackle for UOCAVA voters
A UOCAVA voter could register to vote at their final tackle of residence within the jurisdiction wherein they’re registering even when another person now resides at that tackle, if the constructing the place the voter resided has been demolished, or if the tackle not exists. The one requirement is that the tackle equipped by the voter is the final tackle which the voter thought-about their everlasting residence throughout the jurisdiction in query. [Secretary of State Election Officials Manual, Chapter 7: Military and Overseas Votes (July 2024), p 3 (emphasis added).]
Plaintiffs filed go well with complaining that this part of the Guide violates Const 1963, artwork 2, § 1, which offers:
{Qualifications} of electors; residence.
Each citizen of the US who has attained the age of 21 years,[1] who has resided on this state six months, and who meets the necessities of native residence offered by regulation, shall be an elector and certified to vote in any election besides as in any other case offered on this structure. The legislature shall outline residence for voting functions.
Plaintiffs search a declaratory judgment that Const 1963, artwork 2, § 1 requires each voter to have resided in Michigan for a six-month interval, and the federal UOCAVA preempts this state residency requirement solely to the extent the absent uniformed companies or abroad voter (or their partner or dependent) every personally final resided in Michigan.
As such, plaintiffs search a declaration that the Guide’s provision {that a} partner or dependent is eligible to vote regardless of by no means dwelling in the US or Michigan is invalid.
Regardless of the misinformation being pedaled by Michigan’s high election official, the enchantment clearly states:
Plaintiffs don’t problem the constitutionality of any Michigan statute, nevertheless.
