Three Charged with Michigan Petitioning Felonies

Posted on by June 22, 2023

Three individuals have been charged with several felonies in connection with ostensibly fraudulent petitions submitted for five of ten Republican candidates for Governor of Michigan to get on the Primary ballot in 2022. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this story link:

https://www.mlive.com/politics/2023/06/signature-collectors-face-felonies-from-scandal-that-upended-gop-governors-race.html

Comments

Three Charged with Michigan Petitioning Felonies — 36 Comments

  1. There would be less need for fraudulent petitions if the state accepted filing fees as an option for nomination signatures to get on the ballot.

    And, why not? The state would actually gain some revenue, and those who want to be on the ballot would help support the cost. A win-win.

  2. I am surprised only 3 people have been charged. Maybe more will be charged later.

  3. The argument would be that filing fees do not show public support for a candidate, and that petitions do.

  4. “The argument would be that filing fees do not show public support for a candidate, and that petitions do”

    There is no reason not to make both options available to candidates.

    In fact, I would favor a combination method. A signature could be valued at a certain amount, say $1 each, for purposes of this example. Then a candidate could submit, say any combination of 1,000 signatures, or a $1,000 to get on the ballot.

    Then, a candidate who is getting close to a deadline who seems to be falling behind in the number of signatures, for whatever reason (which could include the fact that his rivals have purchased all the paid signature gatherers, and are willing to pay them for an excess number of signatures, just to frustrate all other rivals), could make up the shortfall with cash.

  5. PETS ONLY FOR TOP OFFICES – USA SEN, USA REP, GOV

    FILING FEES OPTION FOR LOWER OFFICES –

    STATE SENATORS / STATE REPS / ETC. — LOWER GERRYMANDER OFFICES

    UNEQUAL BALLO ACCESS STUFF FOR PARTISAN OFFICES–
    MAJOR PARTIES
    MINOR PARTIES
    INDEPENDENTS

  6. PUGIN v. GARLAND NO. 22-23 TODAY IN SCOTUS

    OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STUFF

    MORE CHARGES FOR ALL THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN 2016-2018-2020-2022-2024 ELECTIONS ???

  8. There should be no petitions or filing fees, and Michigan is far too large to have elective offices, particularly with the unwise practice of letting everyone and their mother vote. At 10 million population, it’s probably quite adequate for a military national defense area, although there’s no particular need for it to separate from the USA for that purpose – I’m only saying it is in all likelihood big enough. Israel and Switzerland are below 10 million population each, and both have top 20 ranked military forces in the world. However, the military defense function is the only legitimate function of government at that population size, and there’s no need for or sense in civilian election of commander in chief.

    As for local areas, law enforcement against criminals is the sole legitimate function of government at that level. For that purpose I’m guesstimating an optimal population of 100k, of whom 1 in a thousand (100 total) would be voters. Bear in mind this is only an order of a magnitude guess; a single order of magnitude variation would probably not be fatal here for any of these numbers to work.

    As stated previously, voting access should be by means of a party precinct captain living in, qualified to vote in, and thus qualified to serve in law enforcement in that area, publicly making his leadership of a party known X (say 6) months before a yearly election. He must also show up in person on election night to the voting hall to lead his men in gathering in a party section of the hall. Having a party precinct captain meeting all the qualifications show up would be the requirement to get a section of the hall, right to select speakers or make a presentation, etc.

    Keep in mind, winning would be more akin to winning jury duty – an important civic duty, but one that is more likely to draw a sigh of relief if avoided – than to winning elected office or some prize under current conditions. I’ve explained why I think I propose a set of incentives for voters to be very civic minded and not shirk such duty elsewhere. Still, voting would come with a hefty poll tax, and the nontrivial risk of having to actually serve, especially if part of that year’s winning party.

    While these men would be well known to each other, and their families to each other’s families, no one will want to meet a peacekeeper in that official capacity, no matter how good a friend they may be otherwise. Peacekeepers would have to make difficult decisions between friends. They’d also be taking time away from businesses, jobs, families, and many other activities, including sleep. Fortunately, they would rarely be called on – only the most serious crimes and intractable disputes would require their attention, with many built in mechanisms to resolve, prevent, and address more minor ones less formally.

    In the case of last resort requiring peace officers, punishment would be swift, sure, and severe. That would also make prevention more than nine tenths of the cure. Crime could even become so rare as to render the position of peacekeepers largely ceremonial. I won’t bet on it, but it’s possible.

  14. Another stupid article at election law blog. I don’t see people wanting to do online banking on some random stranger’s device who shows up at their door or accosts them in public, either. This would make fraud even easier, not harder.

    And another idiotic suggestion from AZ. If that method worked, candidates, parties, and issue proponents would already be using it. Does AZ really think no one has thought of that?

    And last but not least, another moronic mischaracterization from AZ. Calling J6 a rebellion is insulting to everyone who died or lost friends and family members, limbs, etc in real rebellions, such as the American revolution, war of Yankee aggression against southern independence, Sinn Fein/IRA, etc. J6 was about as rebellious as James Dean.

  15. AZ is really hitting it out of the ballpark with the count of fake news links today!!

  17. Richard, can you devise a system where a user can block AZ’s useless retarded whiny comments?

  18. ONE OF THE TROLL MORONS WROTE-

    And another idiotic suggestion from AZ. If that method worked, candidates, parties, and issue proponents would already be using it.
    —
    THE GERRYMANDER HACKS — BEING TOTALLY CORRUPT — DO NOT WANT SIMPLE REFORMS TO END THEIR EVIL GERRYMANDER POWER.

    TOO MANY TROLL SUPER MORONS TO COUNT

    — WHO ARE EVIL CLUELESS ABOUT THE SYSTEM ROT

    — AND SIMPLE REFORMS TO END THE ROT – SO WRITE THEIR PRE-SKOOOL PERSONALTY JUNK

  19. Reason.com has a system where users can block each other rather than begging forum management.

  20. The troll moron us AZZ, not me. I simply pointed out that candidates, parties, and issue proponents are already free to circulate one voter petitions through junk mail, internet, and newspapers, at least in some states, if not all of them. The reason they don’t is highly unlikely to be that nobody has tried. It’s probably because so few petitions ever get returned that way that it’s cheaper, easier or both to do it the way it’s done now.

    It would not guard against fraud, either. Unscrupulous campaigns could still pretend they got forms returned in the mail. Unscrupulous groups could still send fake signatures. Absentee and mailbox votes in 2020 were single voter forms, and yet there was massive mail vote fraud with 2000 mules delivering fake votes to drop boxes.

    The rest of the AZ rant is, predictably, nonsense gibberish jabbering, better directed at himself, or both.

  23. The last thing AZ proposal would do is take power away from political hacks. The reason why campaigns hire circus clown rejects to get their candidates on the ballot is because so few people would bother to return junk mail or newspaper petitions that only the well known, well financed, and well connected hacks would make the ballot if everyone had to do it that way. Or maybe nobody at all would make the ballot.

  24. Of course, Pat is right. What would prevent door to door harvesting of signatures, or public locations harvesting? They could offer to mail it for you. A one voter form would not prevent it.

    Think of all the problems with vote harvesting, drop boxes, mail voting etc in 2020. Or in any year in certain areas. Those were all one voter forms. At least voters had an incentive to send those in. Returning junk mail or newspaper inserts, or printing something off the computer (if they have a printer, or even less realistically going somewhere to print it) is just not going to happen.

    Of course, some campaigns will have the money to call and text everyone, put up YouTube and radio and tv ads, send people door to door and to public locations, and pester people as many times as needed to get enough forms mailed in. Some campaigns will have candidates with names already well known to voters before they make the ballot. And other campaigns will not have those advantages before they make it out of the starting gate. Guess which campaigns are likely to have more of an advantage with all that, and which ones won’t make it out of the gate.

    Disagreeing with AZ doesn’t make someone a troll moron. Neither does using a screen name, unless maybe AZ wants to go ahead and admit he’s a troll moron himself.

  25. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/06/23/nessel-perfect-storm-led-to-signature-fraud-in-michigan-governor-race/70346964007/

    Nessel: Large number of first-time governor candidates made signature fraud more likely
    
    Paul Egan
    Detroit Free Press

    LANSING — Greed and an unusually large number of first-time candidates running for governor contributed to a “perfect storm” that led to criminal charges against three people who helped run signature collection companies, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said at a Thursday news conference.
    The case points to the likely need for changes to Michigan election law, including possible state licensing and bonding of signature collection companies, Nessel said.
    “We should be making every effort to learn from this investigation in order to ensure this never happens again,” or at least is made much more unlikely, she said.

  27. If any user doesn’t like any other user’s posts, they are perfectly free to ignore them.

  28. Yes, but it would be better if I could simply block them, like at reason, many news comment sites, etc. Judging by the reaction some people feel the same about me. Why force people to have to scroll past, or bet the forum management to spend their time blocking or removing or approving comments and commenters, when the process can be automated – judging by the fact that other sites do it, I don’t know how exactly.

    Additionally, the ability to have subthreads with replies directly to comments would be useful, which would make it possible to scroll past entire subthreads or reply logically, directly to the comment one replied to, regardless of other comments since. Again, I say it’s possible only because many sites already do it, not because I would know how to implement it myself.

  29. This is why proposal for a modest number of supporters appearing in person is superior. Someone who will take the time to go to the courthouse is likely to be a sincere supporter.

    Michigan only requires petitions for gubernatorial candidates. 15,000 plus a distribution requirement.

    AG Nessel required ZERO signatures.

  30. I agree that small numbers in person is best. I don’t think having candidates, or having electorates big enough that disqualification should ever be necessary, is optimal. I’d prefer the actual elections be in person meetings.

    To the extent we still have large electorates and lots of candidates running for lots of things, or until we can change that: less bad would be if we use the Jim Riley qualification method, but for parties rather than candidates. As long as the number of people appearing is reasonably small, even a new and small party can reasonably be asked to mobilize enough supporters to qualify this way. When it comes to candidates, it’s difficult to imagine many would qualify like that, unless they are either well known, well financed, and well connected themselves, or part of a party apparatus or equivalent thereof which is.

    How many people would realistically take time out if their day to appear for a candidate for some office they care very little about, especially if they just recently met or found out about this person, even if they do like him? If someone is part of a small party, how much time are they likely to have to run to the courthouse multiple times on behalf of their entire slate? How long would the appearances require? Would they be allowed to occur on the same day, provided enough people even have all day on days when the court is open? Would there be enough time in a day to qualify (what’s the largest possible slate?) them all in a day?

    Supposing you did have in person qualification for an election or ballot, why candidates rather than parties? I think it’s better to vote on the basis of a set of ideas and a group which can replace individuals in office as needed between elections. So long as parties have to qualify in person, whether by my preferred method of having a precinct captain conspicuously available for questions for several months and present to vote on election night, or by Jim’s proposal of in person qualification at a courthouse, what’s the objection to voting by party only? There should be plenty of room for as many groups as qualify in an election hall, or if you (unwisely, imo, as explained previously) prefer or continue to have ballots, on ballots.

    Whether in an election hall, on paper, or on whatever medium, there is far more opportunity for voters to study and form an opinion of however many parties are realistically likely to qualify than to do so for a far larger number of candidates running for a wide variety of offices. Of course, under Jim’s proposal, I don’t think it would be nearly as many candidates as now. But that would also probably much more severely limit the range of opinions represented.

    If I’m wrong about any or all of these things, why am I wrong? Note, as always now, none of my questions are being posed to AZ.

  31. MICH —
    SOS AND AG CANDIDATES VIA HACK PARTY CONVENTIONS OR INDEE PETS — LATTER AFTER MANY COURT CASES IN 1970S-1980S
    —
    NONPARTISAN EXECS –
    ONE ELECTION DAY
    EQUAL NOM PETS/FILING FEES
    APPV – PENDING CONDORCET

  33. @Max,

    Filing might be by appointment, including weekend and evening hours. In Zambia, rallies are organized.

    If individual candidates qualified parties would likely form to support them. But statute should not dictate that should or must happen.

  34. If every locale could staff courthouses 24/7 the problem might be less egregious, but I doubt it would entirely disappear. Otherwise, to my knowledge the rest of what I said still stands.

  35. @Max,

    If you don’t care who is the public weighed or hides inspector, why would it matter that you were not willing to indicate your support by appearing in support of some candidate.

    If someone running for governor couldn’t get fifty supporters to demonstrate that support in person for an hour, they have little real support.

  36. Well organized and financed individuals, groups, etc can mobilise or pay people to go stand for the offices few people care about, thus getting themselves paid positions, control of various things most people hardly notice unless they happen to find themselves bound by that particular spool of red tape, and a platform or resume builder for moving up. Less well financed or known individuals individuals and groups, not so much.

    Regarding candidates for governor, the same applies: someone with little name recognition, financing, or organized group connections may not have the support at the start of the campaign, but can build it in the course of one, or of several.

    I’ve proposed a way to not have any of these issues, but it’s not on the table for discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.