[0:02] Meeting of the Michigan Board of State canvacers for the 24th today, 25th.

[0:10] We're September 25th, 2020, six is called to order. Good morning. Another full room.

[0:18] It's great to see everybody this morning. We've got a very limited agenda.

[0:25] I guess we've start right out with the consideration of the meeting minutes for the August 24th, 2020, six meeting.

[0:31] Move to the second.

[0:34] And moved in approved, all in favor.

[0:37] Hi.

[0:38] Opposed number.

[0:40] OK.

[0:42] So before we continue here, we have items 2, 3, 4, and 5.

[0:48] Our all petitions regarding this vision, correct?

[0:54] So there's a couple ways we can do this, but here's

[0:57] how we're going to do it.

[0:58] I'm going to ask Director Brader to read each of those four, and then he's going to read those all at once.

[1:08] We still have to vote on each of them individually, but just so that we don't end up with a lot of waste of time and repeats.

[1:16] We're going to read them all at once, and then as a reader, you're the only one here speaking for it.

[1:24] will then have you come up, let's talk to it, and then once you're finished, then the board will

[1:29] deliberate individually on each of the four and take motion. Is that, does that work for you?

[1:36] Work for anybody here?

[1:45] We're going to actually vote on each of the four, but we're going to read

[1:49] all four of them at once, and then we will have the discussion with you, you can speak, but you are

[1:55] in fact speaking to all four. So if you speak to one individually, let us know when you talk to that

[2:01] so that we can market.

[2:04] Perfect.

[2:05] Director Brader, would you read through the petitions?

[2:10] Yes.

[2:11] Recall number one, the reasons for recalperances on the petition are between July 24th, 2025,

[2:19] and June 3rd, 2022, and Trim County Clerk Victoria Bishop changed several voters,

[2:23] status codes, and the qualified voter filed to cancel.

[2:26] For example, Bishop changed six voter records in Manselon,

[2:28] to cancel on January 9th, January 13th, January 23rd, January 27th, January 29th and April 16th, 2026.

[2:37] The reasons for recall printed on this pretty competition number two are between July 24th, 2025 and June 3rd, 2026,

[2:45] the interim county clerk Victoria Bishop changed voter status codes in the qualified voter file to cancel.

[2:49] For example, Bishop changed six voter records in Mansel and Township to cancel on January 9th, January 13th,

[2:55] during 23rd, January 27th, January 29th, and April 16th, 2026.

[3:00] The Township Clarks responsible for those motor records had not

[3:03] asked Bishop to make those changes on their behalf.

[3:07] The reasons for recalpering to the on position number 3

[3:10] are, on January 9th, January 13th, January 23rd,

[3:14] January 27th, January 29th, and April 16th, 2026,

[3:18] Antropanic Clark, Victoria Bishop,

[3:19] changed the voters' status codes of six manslaughter,

[3:21] Township voters in the qualified voter file to cancel.

[3:25] The reasons we're recovering to the on position number four are January 9th, January 13th, sorry, let's start over.

[3:32] On January 9th, January 13th, January 23rd, January 27th, January 29th, April 16th, 2026,

[3:39] Antrim County Clerk Victoria Bishop changed the voter status codes of six months, low in the township voters in the qualified voter filed to cancel.

[3:45] The township clerk responsible for those voter records had not asked Bishop to make those changes on their behalf.

[3:58] Please state your name and spell it for the clerk and also you'll have to push the little button at the base

[4:04] But you know all that you've been here before. Thank you.

[4:12] My name is Ashley Arida a S. H. L. E. Y. Arida is A. R. E. D. A.

[4:28] Thank you board members.

[4:30] At the center of all four petitions are six voter records, six states, one township, and one resulting status,

[4:42] Council states that this board is not deciding whether the changes were authorized or wise,

[4:49] and is not conducting a trial on whether every allegation is true.

[4:53] And we agree. But much of the opposition asks the board to accept bishop's legal justification for one of the six changes and turn that defense into a reason to reject all four petitions.

[5:10] as unclear. A defense is not ambiguity. Bishop's detailed response identifies the six

[5:21] mantle owner records, the six states, the April 16 deceased voter record, and the township

[5:29] request issue. Her ability to present such a specific defense strongly supports the conclusion

[5:38] that the conduct is identifiable.

[5:42] Council argues that the April 16th change was required

[5:46] because it involved a deceased voter.

[5:49] But Michigan law distinguishes between the county clerk

[5:54] initiating the deceased voter process

[5:57] and the township clerk reviewing the information

[6:01] and completing the cancellation.

[6:04] These petitions describe a change to cancel,

[6:07] not simply the initiation of township review.

[6:12] Even if Bishop believes that change was justified,

[6:16] disagreement about justification does not make the action unclear,

[6:21] turning to the individual formations.

[6:25] Petition 1 describes the broader course of conduct,

[6:29] provides a fixed time period,

[6:30] and identify six dated Mancelona examples.

[6:35] Petition 2 identifies the same course and adds the factual circumstances that the responsible

[6:43] township clerks had not requested the changes.

[6:47] This is additional factual context,

[6:51] not a declaration that the conduct was legal.

[6:54] Petition 3 and 4 eliminate the open-ended objection entirely.

[7:01] Both contain a closed set.

[7:04] Exactly six voters, six states,

[7:08] Mancelona Township, the qualified voter file,

[7:13] and the resulting status cancel.

[7:16] Petition 4 adds the fact that

[7:18] Responsible Township Clerk had not requested those changes.

[7:24] Whether Bishop believes a request was legally necessary is a...

[7:30] Defense to the conduct, not uncertainty about what happened.

[7:36] Council sites and earlier petition involving the Secretary of State. That petition mentioned

[7:42] two different processes, investigation and resolution, and did not clearly identify which

[7:50] one was being challenged. There is no comparable either or problem here. Patitions 3 and 4

[7:59] expressly include all six changes.

[8:03] Council also raises a placement of ejection, specific to petition too.

[8:10] If the board believes that creates a form issue, it should address that petition separately.

[8:17] It proves no basis to reject petition's one, three, or four.

[8:22] Finally, the differences between the different identified and petition three involve punctuation,

[8:32] capitalization and formatting.

[8:35] They do not change a date voter action or status.

[8:39] I agree that the board should reproduce the exact approved language in its determination.

[8:45] That resolves the administrative concern without turning a comma into a clarity defect.

[8:51] These petitions give the board several formulations to consider, a concern about one version should not be transferred to a different version that eliminates it.

[9:05] And we're not asking this board to endorse a recall today.

[9:10] Approval only means that the words are factual and form are sufficiently clear and eligible to move forward through the process.

[9:20] the Board decides whether the words are clear if that standard is met and

[9:26] from county voters decide the merits.

[9:30] I respectfully ask the Board to evaluate each petition independently

[9:35] and approve every version that satisfies the law.

[9:40] Thank you very much.

[9:42] Members, do you have questions or comments for?

[9:47] I do. I have Mr. Rita. You may have noticed in opposing councils documents over the past

[9:55] couple of days. He accused you of not filing things timely.

[9:59] Great. Could you explain to us and we can check with the, I trust you, when things were

[10:04] filed and sure what he's referring to?

[10:07] Sure. So the first date of our initial entire filing packet was sent out on September 14th, I believe.

[10:16] And then I sent out additional supplemental materials on September 19th via email.

[10:25] I believe that there were a couple of days in between when the original email that I sent the board was then forwarded to the Victoria Bishop's Council.

[10:42] So, I think he received it a bit later than when I actually sent it on the 19th.

[10:52] Okay, so you didn't send in any other evidence or documents after the 19th?

[10:57] No, no.

[10:59] Okay, thank you.

[11:02] Yeah.

[11:02] Mr. Rita, you want us to consider each of these and make a determination on each.

[11:08] If we determined that one was clear, do you still want the other three?

[11:15] I do.

[11:16] I think that would be great.

[11:18] That way we would have multiple options to choose from when we go back and meet with the committee.

[11:28] If that's okay with you all.

[11:33] So it's my understanding that if we approve for or three, whatever,

[11:42] you would then decide which one you prefer and that would be the one that is submitted to the bureau when you are circulated.

[11:49] Exactly.

[11:53] Okay. I do know it. I did read the correspondence from Ms. Bishop's attorney who is, as you say, saying that one of the cancelations was one that she was required to make because the voter was deceased.

[12:11] That's right. I think whether that's true or not, it doesn't make it unclear.

[12:19] exactly. So, clarity is not necessarily truthfulness, which is a strange thing about recall,

[12:30] but we're looking for clarity and not necessarily accuracy. So, it could be factually clear

[12:39] and if, in fact, she had the obligation herself to do that, that would be her defense.

[12:47] I said, is that what you're saying?

[12:48] Yes.

[12:49] If she had the obligation herself to do that,

[12:53] she could make that known during the recall process.

[12:58] But either, either way, it is clear,

[13:04] we make it very clear to miss Bishop and to the voters.

[13:11] That these are, right, changes, she made it in the law.

[13:14] These are changes that she made to them.

[13:17] not have, that's not the issue. The issue is that she did. Yes. At least that's my understanding, right?

[13:25] Yes.

[13:29] Okay. You folks, if you want to discuss, can we, can we maybe take these? Now we do have to

[13:34] actually look at that individually. Can we take these one by one?

[13:40] If we look at the first petition,

[13:42] which is item two on your agenda?

[13:47] Discussion?

[13:51] I believe that it's clear. In fact, I would say

[13:54] at this point in our discussion that I think all four of the petitions are clear. Each

[14:02] of them sets forth actions taken by the office, so whose recall I saw it specifically

[14:11] identifies those actions. So I think each of them is clear, but I know we have to

[14:21] on each and Missoretta wants us to consider each and so she submitted them to us and we

[14:27] need to do that. Thank you.

[14:30] I agree. Yeah, I agree. The first, the first reason for recall is clear. And I believe

[14:42] it's factual as well.

[14:53] I'm actually inclined to, you know, we all get favorites right?

[14:57] So rather than talk about clarity first of all, I would say the ones that are

[15:00] For the most clear to me are the second and the fourth.

[15:10] I also believe that the first one is, the first

[15:14] petition is also clear. The only one that I would probably look sideways at is the third, where

[15:24] simply it to me it's just it's not clear enough.

[15:29] Yeah I tend to agree I mean the one that I think is the best is the second one but I

[15:34] know we're going through them individually but to me that one is gives the most

[15:41] evidence and gives the most information for a signer to understand what's going on.

[15:48] Okay I would also I would like to make one point just so it's on the record with

[15:53] Miss Bishops Attorney who was concerned about our 48-hour rule, and you've already spoken a little to that.

[16:00] But I do want to clarify that as an individual board member reviewing all of this material,

[16:06] I didn't look at your pieces that had come in from the township clerks.

[16:13] Not ostensibly, not because it was 48 hours, but because I had everything I needed already.

[16:18] So, I do want to put that on there because I know this bishop's attorney had specifically called that out.

[16:26] And lately we seem to be considering the 48-hour rule in a lot of meetings.

[16:34] So, yeah, that's on the record.

[16:36] If, if we have any more conversation on these that we need to make,

[16:42] that we need to, no, I don't.

[16:45] Do you folks feel like we're ready to just work for the motions?

[16:49] Yes.

[16:50] And I would ask for a motion for item two, which is petition number one.

[16:56] I move that the Board of State canvases determine that the reasons for recall printed on petition number one, submitted by Ashley,

[17:03] read it against Anthrom County Clerk Victoria Bishop on September 14, 2020, 26. Our

[17:10] factual and sufficiently clear and based on Bishop's calm duct in office because it sets

[17:17] for specific actions which you took on specific dates.

[17:24] It's the port.

[17:25] And moved and supported all in favor? Hi. Hi.

[17:31] I say I know opposing I would ask

[17:32] So we move on to petition number two, do I have a motion?

[17:39] I moved at the Board of State Canvasers

[17:41] determined that the reasons for recall printed

[17:44] on petition two, submitted by Ashley Gerrera,

[17:48] against anchoring county clerk Victoria Bishop,

[17:51] on September 14th, 2026,

[17:54] are factual and sufficiently clear

[17:56] and based on Bishop's conduct in office,

[17:59] because the language provides dates

[18:01] and reasons for Victoria Bishops, I'm going to strike that.

[18:10] I move that the Board of State Canvasers determined that the reasons for recall printed

[18:14] on petition one submitted by Ashley Arita against Andrew County Clerk Victoria Bishops

[18:19] on September 14, 2026 are factual, and sufficiently clear, and based on Bishops' conduct

[18:26] in office because dates are provided and the conduct is provided very clearly.

[18:36] Excuse me, did I hear you say petition one?

[18:38] Oh.

[18:39] We have to redo that when we've already voted on petition one.

[18:42] I did say that.

[18:59] I moved at the Board of State Cavsers determined that the reasons for recall printed on

[19:03] petition two submitted by Ashley Arita against Andrew County Clerk Victoria Bishop on

[19:09] September 14, 2026, our factual, and sufficiently clear, and based on Bishop's conduct

[19:15] in office, because dates are provided in the conduct is provided clearly.

[19:21] And moved, I would second that.

[19:25] And moved in second it, hall in favor.

[19:28] Aye.

[19:30] Being that there are no opposed, we'll move on to petition tree, so I have a motion.

[19:36] Oh,

[19:39] we're going to do this again.

[19:41] Are you, let me ask you a question before you try to read a motion.

[19:44] Are you also having an issue with the material on your screen that is not there for this meeting?

[19:50] No, I'm not.

[19:51] Okay, just making sure, you don't need Mr. for Cassie's machine for that?

[19:56] Yes, I do.

[20:01] Yeah, that's fine.

[20:03] I think technical issues.

[20:04] This is what happens when you submit for a petition.

[20:09] Okay.

[20:10] Yeah, okay. I move that the Board of State

[20:14] officers determine that the reasons for

[20:16] recall printed on petition three submitted by

[20:18] Ashley Herita against Andrew County

[20:21] Clerk Victoria Bishop on September 14th,

[20:24] 2026 are factual and sufficiently clear

[20:27] and based on Bishop's conduct in office

[20:30] because dates are provided in the conduct

[20:31] is provided clearly.

[20:35] I have a second.

[20:38] There's been moved in seconded hall in favor.

[20:42] I'm actually going to oppose this one. So I'll be a nay on number three.

[20:52] I'm sorry.

[20:55] Just to be clear that means it fails even though it was two to one because you're correct.

[20:59] You are correct.

[21:03] Yeah.

[21:03] It leads us with one petition petition number four. Do I have a motion?

[21:18] I moved at the Board of State Cavsers determined that the reasons for recall printed on petition four

[21:23] submitted by Ashley Arita against Andrew County Clerk Victoria Bishop on September 14,

[21:29] 1226, our factual and sufficiently clear, and based on Bishop's conduct in office, because

[21:36] the dates have been provided, and the conduct provided is clear.

[21:43] And moved in second at all, in favor?

[21:46] I.

[21:47] Motion passes.

[21:50] You've got three out of four, before we move on to something else, just a quick, quick comment.

[21:57] Sure.

[21:57] You got a three out of four. Please only use one. Yes. I know that's obvious, but I guarantee you if you come back and you have split

[22:07] petitions and you've used two of three and you have signatures on both. I can already tell you how the board will react. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you for the time today. Truly. Thank you. Your third trip.

[22:25] right safely thank you yeah the nice right back I think though here's an

[22:30] All sunshine up

[22:41] there.

[22:46] We are on, we are on item number 6, public comment. Is there any public comment on coming through the line?

[22:55] No. All right.

[22:59] Mr. Wolff,

[23:04] I need you to turn on the microphone at the base and state your name and spell it for the clerk.

[23:13] Good morning. I am Alan Wolff, A-L-L-E-N-W-O-L-F.

[23:21] I have a citizen of Michigan and a taxpayer in

[23:24] Antrim County for more than 40 years.

[23:27] Thank you for your decision today.

[23:30] Our president has pointed to Michigan

[23:31] a specifically Antrim County as a hotbed of election fraud.

[23:35] In reality, there was no widespread misconduct in 2020 as he alleged.

[23:43] So, his MAGA Confederates needed to create some

[23:46] and along comes Ms. Victoria Bishop.

[23:50] Due to the absence of ranked choice voting,

[23:52] Ms. Bishop got the Republican nomination with a minority of the vote in 2024 and ran in

[23:59] the general election unopposed on the ballot. Since being elected, the voters of

[24:04] Antrim County have become aware that they made a huge mistake as a result of a federal

[24:09] bankruptcy proceeding after her election where she and her husband gave sworn testimony.

[24:15] We learned that she had filed any 24 and ran in the general election unopposed on the ballot.

[24:21] Since being elected, the voters of Antium County have become aware that they made a huge mistake,

[24:28] as a result of federal bankruptcy proceeding after her election, where she and her husband

[24:34] gave sworn testimony, we learned that she had filed a false campaign finance report.

[24:41] She falsely claimed her husband made loans and donations to her campaign of about $15,000.

[24:46] In a corrected filing, she claimed to have been the donor herself of $10,000 in cash to her

[24:54] campaign in excess of a $20 legal limit, and could provide no paper trail of the source

[25:01] of the funds.

[25:02] She admits that she hadn't filed tax returns on her radio station business, or personally,

[25:08] as far back as she could remember.

[25:10] She admitted that she had paid no taxes and failed to keep any business records or tax records.

[25:16] She was found to be in contempt of court and ordered to pay fines and cost of about $12,000,

[25:23] which had to be garnished from her wages as a clerk.

[25:27] If that wasn't enough, it has been widely reported that she gave her husband a twice convicted felon

[25:34] unsupervised access to her clerk's office and her computer.

[25:37] According to media reports, she has mailed out about 1,800 cancellation of verification

[25:43] postcards with multiple deficiencies to voters.

[25:47] She has made it at least 160 changes to the QVF that she was not authorized to make.

[25:53] She defended her actions with a newspaper add, paid for by taxpayers like me, claiming

[25:59] that she had a mandate from the people that she basically didn't have to follow the law.

[26:03] The Bureau of Elections has found her conducts so egregious that they have removed her

[26:09] access to the qualified voter file until she gets trained and pledges to file the law.

[26:15] She has not made those requirements or even pledged to do so.

[26:20] Just last week, she claimed to be too busy working on the election to respond to a

[26:25] FOIA request until after the November election.

[26:28] The citizens of Antrim County want her gone. The reputation of every other honest, law-biting

[26:36] clerk in the state is being tarnished by allowing Victoria Bishop to remain in office

[26:41] any longer. Ms. Bishop couldn't even bother to show up in person here to anyone of these

[26:47] three hearings. The delays caused by Ms. Bishop's objections has pushed this recall campaign

[26:54] into a position where the signatures will need to be collected in the middle of winter in a very cold

[27:00] county where it will be very, very difficult. But I can tell you this, the citizens of

[27:06] Andrew County will ultimately succeed. I do want to thank the board for its decision today

[27:11] and for the time to allow me to make this statement. Thank you very much.

[27:15] Welcome, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

[27:23] This cappuccino.

[27:31] Wonderful to see you back. If you with the

[27:35] stature name and spell it for the clerk after you turn the microphone on.

[27:42] Is it on? Yes. My name is Lisa Capitina, L.I.S.A.C.A.P.A.T.I. and A. Good morning.

[27:51] Were you stuck in any question? You filled out two sheets. I did. How about if I, how

[27:56] about you, you wanted to speak on six and item number seven? Do you mind if you

[28:02] on six and then continue your conversation into seven and we'll segue into that part of the agenda

[28:08] with your speech, how's that? That actually works out better for me. Thank you. That works.

[28:13] Good morning, Chair House Camp. Vice Chair Gerwitz, member Cummings and the rest of your team.

[28:19] Purn early or request, I am providing the steps taken by Wayne County to support him,

[28:25] tramick, during the August primary, in light of issues that occurred last November.

[28:29] Our Board of Canvasers drafted a letter to all-wane county clerks providing guidance to facilitate a smooth canvas.

[28:38] We asked their consideration in areas where process details are essential.

[28:43] We also suggested implementing a system to ensure their security of ballot storage

[28:48] throughout the entire election cycle and recommended sharing that plan with their staff as an additional level of security

[28:57] to mitigate chain of custody concerns.

[29:01] On July 23rd, it was emailed to all clerks

[29:04] and their deputy clerks.

[29:06] Our deputy director, Jennifer Redmond,

[29:09] conducted a comprehensive three-hour inspector training

[29:12] on July 22nd.

[29:15] I attended that training as an observer

[29:17] during which former inspectors, again,

[29:20] raised allegations of cheating and election malfeasance

[29:23] in prior elections.

[29:25] Both actions permitted and those prohibited during the voting process were reiterated by her and guidance was provided of concerns arose.

[29:35] She returned to Hamtramic for early voting training and offered her assistance with any other of their needs.

[29:42] Hamtramic clerks, Sammy Elhadi, reassigned experienced inspectors to the leadership positions for increased oversight and accuracy.

[29:52] A special chair training was held on July 29th, which I also observed, on Election Day at the

[30:00] I am at counting board. I understand a representative from the state. Carol Pierce was present during ert was present early, excuse me, during the major tabulator malfunction. Later in the day, another individual who identified himself as a New York attorney, working with the state was also present. I was present for most of the closing procedures.

[30:23] Last November, Ham Tramik had one election day precincts and two AV counting boards found

[30:30] not recountable. In the August primary, clerk Elhatty's team completed a successful and

[30:37] smooth canvas. Congratulations, do him, his team, and to the inspectors that volunteered

[30:43] to serve. As to any other steps taken by the county or the state, I am unaware of them. I

[30:50] I'm also unaware of any action or update from the prosecutor regarding the November allegations

[30:57] of fraud, nor the many suspicious ballots, ballot markings noted during the hand recounts.

[31:04] To my knowledge, the county has not yet been contacted.

[31:08] Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.

[31:12] Thank you very much.

[31:14] Could I ask you for a stay for some questions here?

[31:18] Okay, go on.

[31:19] Before you move on to new business, I want to, we were given public comment in our packet

[31:27] and I want to respond.

[31:28] I'm going to let you do that, but let's, let's, we won't, six and seven are kind of soft

[31:34] boundaries.

[31:34] Okay, that's fine.

[31:36] But do you, do you have questions about, yeah, I really appreciate your coming and giving

[31:43] this support and the attention that you have paid.

[31:46] You said that you are unaware of other actions that have been taken by the Bureau or the county.

[31:53] Are there other actions that you think should be taken?

[31:59] I'm just not sure what you meant by bringing that out.

[32:01] What I meant by that was it is almost a year.

[32:06] We're going on a year where we had presented information from the public that came.

[32:12] And there has still been no update or resolve, and it is my understanding as of the last conversation in the primary that the ballots that we indicated looked very suspicious during the hand recount are still sitting in the same place that they were.

[32:33] So that I guess is the part that I think is relevant.

[32:36] So, you have been waiting for some criminal investigation, or for some investigation which might lead to a criminal action against some people.

[32:49] I guess what I'm looking for is an update on whether that investigation is in fact happening in regards to the fact that we submitted our

[33:03] witness to things that looked unusual during that hand recount.

[33:07] Yeah, it is really good to hear what the Wayne County Board of Campus are just on, and I really

[33:14] appreciate your report and impressed with that and grateful with the fact that you have

[33:20] gone to these trainings because I think it's really critical.

[33:24] I do learn a lot every time I go, I went through multiple throughout our county and every

[33:31] time I go.

[33:32] I learned something new.

[33:33] And it is good to hear that the Hamtramic primary was conducted in accordance with the rules.

[33:42] So, you know, that's, and since we're all worried about what's going to happen in November,

[33:46] everywhere, including Hamtramic, that's very good to hear.

[33:50] And thank you for that.

[33:52] Can you direct a break?

[33:52] Your perpetors, you have a debate to think?

[33:55] Well, so there's the forward looking and there's the backward looking aspect of this.

[33:58] So, in terms of the investigation, we don't have any other information about what has happened

[34:03] with that, I think we've referred everything we had many months ago.

[34:07] So that's, from our standpoint, where it's said,

[34:09] signers stand, there are still some matters that need to be resolved.

[34:12] We're going to return back to the judge's order.

[34:15] Also, that the ballots need to be counted,

[34:17] that we're previously not counted.

[34:19] So I'm not sure exactly where that stands,

[34:20] and how that would affect criminal investigation.

[34:22] In terms of the administration's item,

[34:24] as the scavenging of noted, we did have one of the most senior expert

[34:28] members of our team there, and that was following conversations

[34:32] that we had had with the Clark's Office about improving their procedures, so it sounds like

[34:36] that's moving in the right direction, which is great to hear.

[34:38] We're going to continue to work with them.

[34:41] You know, we obviously have a limited number of staff, so we cannot have our staff at local

[34:47] election locations all day, typically, but we're going to continue to provide support to them

[34:52] through November, and other jurisdictions in the way in and around the state as well that might

[34:56] need some help for various reasons.

[34:59] Is that help with your questions?

[35:01] It does, and two director-braiders point, the most recent ruling by the Appellate Court is that those 37 need to be tabulated.

[35:11] We're still waiting to hear about the process for that.

[35:15] But I guess for me, that's what becomes so important in regards to any investigation,

[35:22] and because those 37 that we have not seen were subject to the same, I guess,

[35:35] the same process

[35:37] or they could be included in those pre-syncs where the unusual markings on ballots occurred.

[35:45] So if we were told, you know what, we've investigated, there's no issue here, to me it empowers

[35:51] the decision and makes me feel more comfortable about going forward with that process, knowing

[35:57] that everything has been investigated.

[36:06] Do we have anything from the Attorney General's office to add to that?

[36:15] Well, things referred for criminal investigation is a different division for me.

[36:20] So I'm aware that I believe that we are investigating things to do with the hemtraumatic,

[36:26] but I'm not aware of the status of that.

[36:28] And if there's no news from our department,

[36:30] it means we're still looking at it.

[36:31] So that is an active investigation.

[36:34] From what I recall, that there is,

[36:36] we have an inactive investigation into some of the hand-traumatic

[36:40] voting issues.

[36:44] We'll continue to be here and monitor it for you as well.

[36:47] We've been through your eyes.

[36:51] And you also know how to reach all of us.

[36:52] I do.

[36:55] In multiple ways.

[36:57] I would add one more thing before you before we move on, and that is we really appreciate the effort

[37:03] that you and your team, your board members have done, you bring a lot of credit to the process.

[37:14] When County does a really good job, you walk in the door, it doesn't appear partisan at all,

[37:21] and we're there to do a job, and everybody seems to feel the same way.

[37:25] speaks loudly for the, for the, for the fear and transparent elections in Michigan.

[37:32] It's something that I had the privilege of serving on the Wayne County Board for about, I don't know, six or eight months before I was appointed to this position, and I was really impressed with the work that the Wayne County staff did.

[37:46] It's a big job, it's much bigger job than any other county has, there were 900 and some

[37:54] pre-sinks and so one goes in and sees this enormous aisles of all books which have to be

[38:02] reviewed and which are meticulously reviewed, so it's a big job and they do it well.

[38:11] I think you'd be rather overwhelmed walking in now with early-voting, voting centers and

[38:21] absentee counting boards, the magnitude of data that comes in, we don't have space for

[38:29] any more.

[38:30] So, it's piles.

[38:32] We have levels.

[38:35] Thank you.

[38:36] Thank you again for your time.

[38:37] Thanks for taking time to come over.

[38:39] Do you want me to sit down and come, like, what do you want me to do for, or are you, I'm sorry.

[38:45] For part two, the other one, which you can move on.

[38:49] You know what you do have part two, go ahead.

[38:53] Okay.

[38:58] Members of the board.

[38:59] As a county canvasser and Michigan voter, I feel compelled to also express my confusion regarding the standards of accountability that were applied to affidavits during the recent review of American

[39:12] for citizens voting petition.

[39:14] What I witnessed during the Board's discussion was more than a disagreement over individual

[39:19] signatures.

[39:21] For me, it raised a broader question.

[39:23] Are we applying consistent standards when determining whether a voter's identity and signature

[39:29] are valid?

[39:30] As I understand the process, ballot proposal signatures under GOQVF review, when a signature

[39:37] rejected the promoter is given an opportunity to rehabilitate. In several ACV cases, that rehabilitation

[39:44] was extensive and the state subsequently acknowledged the signatures as valid, yet despite

[39:51] statements made during discussions that there should be a really high bar to remove signatures.

[40:00] These signatures are real voters. I'm not a handwriting expert. Members never the less rejected

[40:06] signatures because the rehabilitation occurred outside the 48-hour rule.

[40:13] Our Michigan election system recognizes the importance of allowing voters to cure deficiencies.

[40:19] Absentee voters may cure a rejected signature within a statutory time frame.

[40:25] Move ballots postmarked by election day may be received up to six days after the election.

[40:30] Likewise, a voter who arrives at a precinct without photo ID may sign an affidavit and

[40:37] cast a regular ballot.

[40:39] As of today, the number of Wayne County voters using affidavits has increased significantly

[40:45] from 221 in the August of 225 pre-marry, primary, to 961 in August of 226.

[40:55] Thousands of voters statewide have similarly used this process.

[41:00] In the ACV case, signatures were subjected to additional verification, yet rejected because

[41:06] the supporting documentation was submitted outside an administrative deadline.

[41:13] Meanwhile Michigan law provides voters multiple mechanisms to establish identity or

[41:19] cure deficiencies when casting a ballot.

[41:21] The contrast is striking to me.

[41:24] I'm not suggesting deadlines be ignored, deadlines matter, procedures matter, election integrity

[41:31] matters, but consistency matters too.

[41:36] If a signature has been substantially verified, it is reasonable to ask whether a procedural

[41:42] deadline should outweigh evidence establishing its validity, and if a more stringent standard

[41:49] is applied to a petition signature, then to establishing the identity of a person actually casting

[41:56] a ballot.

[41:58] The public deserves to understand why.

[42:00] My concern is not simply whether these particular signatures were accepted or rejected.

[42:07] It is whether the principles of verification, accountability, and fairness are being applied

[42:13] consistently throughout our elections.

[42:16] Thank you.

[42:17] Thank you,

[42:25] and that comment was under general.

[42:27] That was public comment.

[42:29] It's okay.

[42:30] They,

[42:33] for Sieger, you had an item number seven mark, which you talked about with the

[42:37] end-traffic, as new business, and it's okay.

[42:39] I'm going to regard them all together here, is that fair?

[42:43] This coming.

[42:44] You wanted to address public comment.

[42:47] Right.

[42:47] So we received an email from a Michigan resident named Paula Kenzu, and we received two emails

[42:57] actually one on Friday, September 4th, let me get the date of the other one.

[43:05] It was to myself, I think she was trying to include everybody on the board, but didn't have

[43:11] to address email addresses for a few of you, and then Monday, September 21st, and essentially

[43:19] she was upset about the voting that occurred for Americans for citizen voting, and she

[43:29] called me out for a comment, and I made about not having time to read some material. So I just

[43:41] that I agree with much of what Ms. Kenzu has stated being a member of the Michigan Board of

[43:47] State Canvasers comes with a lot of responsibility. It is an honor to have been appointed by

[43:53] Governor Whitmer and I take this opportunity very seriously. The Board has rules and policies

[43:59] that help maintain consistency in fairness. Rule 168.844 provides that parties may file written arguments

[44:07] with the board at least 48 hours before the date of the hearing. There is an accompanying rule

[44:14] 1.6.846, which requires that members of the public must submit materials to the board at least 48

[44:21] hours prior to the meeting. The rule also provides that the board shall not consider material received

[44:28] after the 48 hour deadline. That is a rule I followed on August 24, 2026 when deciding not to

[44:36] consider the material that was being presented to us that morning. That is what I was

[44:41] referring to when I indicated we did not have time to read the additional material that

[44:46] was presented to us that day. Not only did we not have time but we are also bound by our rules

[44:52] not to consider it. It would have been unfair if we did. The opposing party was not allowed to do so.

[45:00] We refused to entertain evidence the opposing party submitted that was late. We have done so in the past and I will continue to do so, unless told otherwise.

[45:10] Notably, the Bureau's report and staff recommendation that day was that the Board determined the petitions insufficient.

[45:18] After reviewing every piece of timely evidence, coming to Lansing prior to the meeting and reviewing signatures,

[45:26] listening to seven hours of arguments that occurred during the meeting,

[45:31] I agreed with the Bureau that the petitions were insufficient.

[45:35] I agree that the Americans for citizen voting was painfully close.

[45:40] It was a very difficult day, but that is not the fault of the board or those of us on the board who voted no.

[45:46] That is the fault of Americans for citizen voting.

[45:49] The failure of this sloppy petition rests solely on edge shoulders, and that's all I wanted to say.

[45:59] Thank you.

[46:00] Thank you.

[46:05] Director Brader, Mr. Fracasi, addressing to either one of you gentlemen, it's been a pretty

[46:13] eventful month since we were, is that

[46:16] do I get to get the award for understatement there?

[46:20] It's been a fairly eventful month and

[46:26] Director

[46:26] Brader, Mr. Fracasi, addressing to either one

[46:31] of you gentlemen, it's been a pretty eventful month

[46:34] since we were, is that do I get to get the award

[46:38] for understatement there?

[46:41] It's been a fairly eventful month and I would,

[46:46] I'd like to open up the floor to either of you,

[46:49] both of you, to share any thoughts, any updates,

[46:56] any, we've had two court opinions, one from the U.S. Supreme Court.

[47:02] I have to tell you,

[47:06] I mentioned to my wife Renee.

[47:07] I said at one point, I wanted to become an attorney long, long, long, long time ago.

[47:12] And Congressman Vanderjack was kind enough to write me a letter to get into law school and he said maybe someday you'll be in front of the U.S. Supreme Court

[47:21] The fact that our transcripts

[47:24] are now on the court's website

[47:26] is not quite

[47:29] the same but the goal certainly has been achieved and just see you know I've taken it off of my bucket list

[47:36] Do you gentlemen have anything you'd like to add to where we are and

[47:43] Yeah, so I appreciate that, and I was going to talk during other business also about sort of the house committee which I'll talk about a second.

[47:51] So, I mean, yes, it is not unusual for there to be litigation after the Board's decisions on petitions and on initiative petitions, specifically, that's happened in the past.

[48:05] I think that these, this case was different, one because the U.S. Supreme Court was involved

[48:14] in two just because of how close the determination was and obviously people don't on both sides

[48:21] felt very strongly about it.

[48:23] So I think, you know, in responding to, you know, in reviewing the briefing in the cases and,

[48:30] you know, both those were submitted on behalf of those that were submitted on behalf of all

[48:34] parties and also just some of the public discussion about a couple of things. One, one thing

[48:42] is more to keep in mind is that we get basically one shot at developing our procedures every

[48:49] two-year cycle. So after we go through an election cycle we review the board's determinations

[48:56] on specific matters that maybe hadn't come up before or maybe that the current board handles

[49:01] in a slightly different way than the pass boards.

[49:05] We also are obviously looking at court decisions that come

[49:07] through like the Wickman decision,

[49:08] which came through that changed the procedures

[49:11] that we had in place,

[49:12] then also rulemaking and legislation.

[49:14] So what we attempt to do is basically review all the issues

[49:18] that it came up during a cycle.

[49:21] Make sure those are all reflected in the manual

[49:24] and the board's materials,

[49:26] bring that to the board for approval

[49:27] and then use that for the upcoming election cycle.

[49:30] And we'll certainly do that for this cycle as well.

[49:33] And I think one example where we had a petition process

[49:39] with some strong feelings like this was the 2022

[49:44] gubernatorial issue in the primary of that lead

[49:46] to us to moving to random sampling for the statewide officers

[49:51] which I think was an ultimately a good change

[49:53] and helped us resolve some of these issues differently.

[49:55] even though obviously the folks that we're not, you know, we're

[50:02] regardless of how they felt about the determination that was made in the past cycle,

[50:04] making those changes would allow us to hopefully handle these more clearly in the future.

[50:09] So, I think in this case, the board definitely should consider all the feedback that is

[50:15] received and we can look at going to next cycle, how the board wants to address some of these things.

[50:21] That's obviously within the confines of the election law and the administrative rules, which brings me to the last point, which is that we do have the State House as convene to select committee reviewing this process, which I know you're all aware of.

[50:40] They've started meeting, they did have a meeting on Monday of this week I believe, with the representatives from American Forces and Voting.

[50:47] I understand they're also requesting to hear from Michigan money out of politics, and then they

[50:54] have also sent a lot of requests to the Department of State's slash group elections, which

[50:59] we are in the process of responding to.

[51:01] We are going to be providing a lot of information to them.

[51:04] There's also some things that we have questions about that will continue to work with them on.

[51:09] I mean, I'm sure there will continue to be strong feelings that are expressed as a part

[51:14] of that process.

[51:15] But ultimately, my hope would be that we can look at some process changes that we can make

[51:23] to provide as much clarity as we can in consistency as we can.

[51:28] The Board, of course, has already tried to make, you know, push legislative changes.

[51:32] The Board was very active.

[51:33] And the Bureau was supporting the Board in that effort to try to get some changes made to the

[51:38] election law that I think if they had been enacted, might have helped resolve some of the issues

[51:42] that we faced, it was not enacted.

[51:45] So one thing that could potentially come out of this

[51:47] is another effort to pass some legislation

[51:50] that could address some of these issues.

[51:52] But regardless of what comes out of that,

[51:54] I think it's going to be important for the board.

[51:56] Outside of the context of considering a specific petition,

[51:59] but just the petition process broadly,

[52:02] to get the best possible set of requirements

[52:04] we can in place.

[52:06] Once we do that, an effortly what we find is that we may

[52:10] have addressed some of the issues they came up with

[52:11] past cycle, but now there are new issues that come up at the board as a deal with on the fly.

[52:16] And of course we have very talented and motivated attorneys that are looking for, you know,

[52:21] making the best argument they can for their clients. And that's always pressing the board to consider

[52:27] new issues or issues in new context. So I think the-

[52:30] The best that we can do is apply the procedures that we haven't placed to the positions that come before us, and then after the fact, look at what went well and what people weren't happy about and see to what extent we should make changes to how we'll address those things in the future.

[52:44] That's where our focus is going to be, and hopefully we'll come out of this with a process that works as well as possible for everybody involved.

[52:53] Thank you, Director Brader.

[52:55] I would add to that.

[52:56] I guess two points.

[52:57] One is, at least during my tenure on the board.

[53:01] I've watched the Bureau and the Board and participated in a constant review of how we conduct business.

[53:11] And we have always looked at this as being something where we try to be fair.

[53:17] But the other point being is that during the last election cycle,

[53:21] We were, we were actually part of discussions in the State House working closely with us.

[53:29] We were part of discussions and we attended a hearing for a package of legislation that

[53:35] significantly improved process.

[53:38] And I know that that was a, that was a bipartisan, truly a bipartisan effort.

[53:44] And both Republicans and Democrats in both House and Senate came together, put aside any

[53:50] differences, impact, and past significant benefits, legislation that would have significant

[53:59] benefits,

[54:03] that legislation was vetoed, and that's outside of our conversation, but the

[54:09] point that I'm trying to make is that the legislature has worked with them, and I think

[54:14] good things have come out, and good things will come out in the future.

[54:19] So, that being in the case, is there any other business to come before this board?

[54:27] I have something that I would like to address.

[54:32] People are worried, of course, about the administration of the election in November.

[54:38] And we have a role to play, and our role is certification, and I have heard concerns

[54:50] expressed about whether any counties might fail or refuse to certify.

[55:00] And so I think it is important just to clarify the certification issue.

[55:08] It is the obligation of the county boards of canvassers to certify the results in each county.

[55:15] And they have to do that within a statutory period of time, 14 days, I believe.

[55:24] One thing that people need to understand, that we understand, is that if the county fails to certify,

[55:32] it is the obligation of the State Board to certify,

[55:36] and the county is then required to provide them all of its materials,

[55:41] and the two county canvassers are required to come themselves to the State Board to assist

[55:50] the State Board in completing that canvas.

[55:55] There has, remember, our House Camp, you've noted that there has been legislative

[56:02] It's just one that was not vetoed.

[56:07] Was it changed to make in the provision regarding the county canvas?

[56:13] It was clarified to specifically say, and this was in a 24 piece of legislation.

[56:22] It is the ministerial clerical and non-discussionary duty of each board of county

[56:27] canvassers and all of the members to certify the election results based solely on the statement

[56:34] of returns from the election day precincts, or the voting sites, and absent voting

[56:39] county boards.

[56:41] So to the extent that it wasn't clear before, it is absolutely clear now that the decision

[56:50] regarding certification is one, which is not a discretionary one.

[56:55] Nor is our decision discretionary.

[56:58] The county results come to us.

[57:02] They get all tallied up, and we say, yep, that's it.

[57:06] And it is our job to be the final vote for certifying the election,

[57:16] and then actually giving to each of the elected officials the

[57:23] promoter. We signed so many certifications. So I think it is important, you know, there

[57:32] are not many people here, but people do watch. I'm surprised to hear sometimes that somebody

[57:38] is actually watched,

[57:41] but it is important that that be clearly understood by the general

[57:46] public that this is not something where anyone in the process says, well, maybe this time

[57:53] I won't certify. It will be certified. And I know that other other people with election

[58:01] responsibility are looking very carefully to make sure that there is not interference with

[58:09] the elections. And I have great great confidence in the election administration in Michigan.

[58:20] I have seen it from various levels in precincts in county boards here. I've seen what

[58:31] the bureau does. I know what the bureau does. And I have absolute confidence that it

[58:37] be a fairly run election.

[58:43] Thank you, Vice Chair.

[58:46] Anything else we need to chat about?

[58:49] That being said, it is five minutes to 12, four minutes to 12.

[58:54] We are adjourned.

MI Board of State Canvassers 26-09-25

Transcript