Jocelyn Benson: Lawbreaker Or Misunderstood?

Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's 43rd Secretary of State, has been accused of breaking the law in her role as an overseer of Michigan's 2020 and 2022 general elections. Benson's guidance to local clerks on how to verify signatures was deemed invalid by a Michigan Court of Claims judge, who ruled that she had violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The judge stated that Benson's directive was a rule that fell outside her authority to give and that it should have come from the state legislature, which has authority over how elections are conducted. This ruling has sparked debates about election security and voter fraud, with Republicans arguing that Benson's actions could have negatively impacted the integrity of the election.

Jocelyn Benson violated the Administrative Procedures Act

Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State of Michigan, was found to have violated the state's Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by a judge of the Michigan Court of Claims. Benson issued guidance to local clerks on how to verify signatures on absentee ballots in the run-up to the 2020 general election. This guidance, issued on October 6, 2020, instructed clerks to presume the validity of signatures and to look for "redeeming qualities" or "distinctive flourishes" when comparing signatures.

The case against Benson was brought by the Allegan County Clerk Robert Genetski and the Michigan Republican Party, who argued that her guidance violated the APA and state election laws. They specifically took issue with the directive that election officials should resolve slight dissimilarities in signatures "in favor of finding that the voter's signature was valid."

Judge Christopher Murray ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that Benson's guidance was, in fact, a rule that should have been promulgated in accordance with the APA. He wrote that the presumption of signature validity "is found nowhere in state law" and that it "goes beyond the realm of mere advice and direction." Murray's ruling stated that Benson's guidance "was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act" and that it was invalid.

The ruling has potential implications for election procedures, particularly regarding signature verification, which is a key tool in fighting electoral fraud.

Benson's absentee ballot mailings were illegal

Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's Secretary of State, has been accused of performing illegal absentee ballot mailings. Benson's predecessor, Ruth Johnson, led the charge, stating that Benson's "changes and attempts to centralise certain election functions... are really truly alarming." Benson's decision to send absentee ballot applications to all 7.7 million registered voters in Michigan was met with backlash from Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, who threatened to withhold funding for Michigan. They argued that the mailings could compromise election security by increasing voter fraud.

In response to the criticism, a Department of State spokesperson, Jake Rollow, stated that the absentee voter application has been available on the state's website for years, and that mailing it does not pose any additional security risks. Furthermore, automatic voter registration helps identify non-citizens and those who have moved out of state. Rollow also emphasised that Benson is using data and best practices from other states to make Michigan's elections more modern, secure, and accessible.

Despite these assurances, some remain concerned about the potential for voter fraud. Kent County Clerk Lisa Posthumus Lyons, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in 2018, expressed that a presidential election cycle is not the appropriate time for such significant changes. She also agreed with Johnson's claim that they have heard of "countless examples of absentee ballot applications being mailed to individuals who are dead, have moved, are non-citizens, or are underage."

The debate surrounding absentee ballot applications often revolves around fraud concerns. However, experts argue that mass mailing could help purge inaccurate voter records, as undelivered mail will be returned to local clerks, enabling them to remove deceased individuals and other inaccurate records from the voter rolls. Additionally, multiple requirements are in place to verify identities, making a significant increase in fraud unlikely.

A Michigan Court of Claims judge, Christopher Murray, ruled that Benson violated the Administrative Procedures Act when she gave guidance to local clerks on how to verify signatures. Murray stated that the directive was a rule that fell outside of Benson's authority and should have come from the state legislature, which has control over how elections are conducted. This ruling carries weight, as it undoes some of the trust built during the audit process, with a majority of Republicans still believing the 2020 election was invalid due to perceived fraud.

Benson's ballot signature verification guidance was invalid

Benson's ballot signature verification guidance was ruled invalid by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray, who said that the guidance was a rule and fell outside of her purview to give. The state legislature has authority over how elections are conducted, and Murray found that the plaintiffs were correct in asserting that the guidance needed to come from them to be treated as binding.

Benson's guidance instructed clerks to presume the accuracy of absentee ballot signatures, which Murray wrote was "found nowhere in state law". He added that the presumption "goes beyond the realm of mere advice and direction, and instead is a substantive directive that adds to the pertinent signature-matching standards".

The ruling was in response to a complaint filed by Allegan County Clerk Robert Genetski and the Michigan Republican Party, who argued that the directive was unlawful. Murray's decision stated that Benson's directive violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which outlines the process that must be followed when an agency creates new rules.

The effects of the guidance could have been significant, as signature verification is a crucial tool in fighting fraud, especially when a substantial portion of ballots received are absentee.

Benson's guidance was issued in early October 2020, and instructed clerks who were matching signatures to "must perform" their duties under the "presumption" that the signature is valid. Clerks and election officials were told to resolve slight differences "in favor of finding that the voter's signature was valid".

Benson's directive was a rule and fell outside her purview

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's guidance to local clerks on how to verify signatures was invalid. The ruling stated that Benson's directive was a rule and fell outside her purview to give. Murray's ruling stated that the directive adds to the pertinent signature-matching standards and that it was not merely advice or direction.

The ruling specified that Benson's guidance document, "Absent Voter Ballot Processing: Signature Verification and Voter Notification Standards," instructed clerks to begin with the presumption that signatures on absent voter ballot applications or envelopes are valid. This presumption was not in line with state law, which requires clerks to match signatures on absentee ballot applications and envelopes with the voter signature on file.

Benson's document stated that signatures should only be considered questionable if they differ "in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file." It further instructed election officials to resolve slight dissimilarities in favour of finding the signature valid.

Judge Murray's ruling found that Benson's directive violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which outlines the process that must be followed when creating new rules. The act requires state agencies to go through a comprehensive process, including public notices, drafts, impact analyses, public comments, and hearings, before submitting the final rule to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

The ruling has thrown out the policy for future elections, but it does not apply retroactively to the 2020 presidential election.

Benson watered down signature verification requirements

Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State of Michigan, was accused of breaking the law in 2020 when she issued guidance to local clerks on how to verify signatures on absentee ballots. This guidance was seen by some as an attempt to water down signature verification requirements and has been described as "heartbreaking" by some commentators.

Benson's guidance stated that signature review "begins with the presumption that" the signature on an absentee ballot application or envelope is valid. It further instructed that signatures "should be considered questionable" only if they differ "in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file". Clerks and election officials were told to resolve "slight dissimilarities" in favour of finding that the voter's signature was valid.

In March 2021, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled that Benson's guidance was invalid as it violated the state's Administrative Procedures Act. He found that the guidance was issued without following the proper rule-making process and that it added substantive directives that were not present in state law. Murray's ruling stated that:

> "Nowhere in the state's election law has the Legislature indicated that signatures are to be presumed valid, nor did the Legislature require that signatures are to be accepted so long as there are any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope signature as compared with the signature on file."

The ruling caused concern among some who felt it undermined trust in the election process. However, others celebrated the decision, arguing that Benson had overstepped her authority and violated election law.

Benson's actions in this matter have been a source of controversy, with some accusing her of enabling illegal votes to be cast. The impact of her guidance on the election process and the potential for fraud is a matter of ongoing debate and legal action.

Frequently asked questions