MI Supreme Court Candidates Sound Off On Election ‘Overreach’

Logan WashburnAugust 13, 2024

The ⁤debate featuring candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the Michigan Supreme Court highlighted differing opinions on current judicial issues, executive orders regarding election ‌administration, and the limits of free speech. Candidates Mark Boonstra, Patrick William O’Grady, ⁣and others participated,‍ emphasizing their judicial philosophies and experiences.

Patrice Johnson, chair of Pure‌ Integrity Michigan Elections,⁤ remarked on the rarity of such⁣ debates for judicial races, allowing voters ⁤to‍ compare ⁢candidates directly.⁢ The discussion included President Joe Biden’s executive order aimed at bolstering voter registration and turnout, which ⁤has faced backlash for potential overreach ‍and⁢ targeting specific voting blocs.

O’Grady referenced ⁤a ‌lawsuit by the Republican National Committee which challenged Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s guidance on‍ absentee ⁣ballot signature validity. He expressed concerns over administrative guidelines conflicting with existing law. Boonstra also ‍criticized what he saw as government overreach by state officials during the pandemic.

When asked about ⁢limitations on free speech, ⁣particularly in light ‍of Attorney General Dana ⁢Nessel’s threats to prosecute individuals for allegedly posting⁣ misleading election information,‌ candidates had ⁤varied perspectives. O’Grady acknowledged potential legal restrictions on speech, while Taylor⁣ argued that such actions reflect a troubling trend of government weaponization against free expression.

The candidates largely shared similar ‍judicial philosophies, advocating a “rule-of-law” approach.‍ They voiced aspirations to restore predictability in court rulings and urged⁣ a return to a conservative judicial interpretation of the law. Fink emphasized his efforts ⁤in promoting election integrity, highlighting legislation he sponsored to keep voter rolls current.

the debate served⁢ as a ‌platform for candidates to ⁤articulate ⁣their⁢ positions on ⁢vital judicial and electoral issues as they seek to influence the future makeup of the Michigan Supreme Court, which they perceive as currently leaning left ideologically.

Four candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the Michigan Supreme Court gathered Thursday night to explain their judicial philosophies and sound off on what they consider “overreach” from election officials at FloodGate Church near Hartland, Michigan.

According to a press release, Pure Integrity Michigan Elections and Stand Up Livingston County hosted the debate, which showed how the candidates compare on election integrity and the rule of law.

State Supreme Court elections in Michigan are considered nonpartisan, but candidates do seek a state party’s nomination to get on the November ballot, according to Bridge Michigan.

Alexandria Taylor, state Rep. Andrew Fink, Appeals Judge Mark Boonstra, and Circuit Judge Patrick William O’Grady — all running for the Republican nomination — attended the debate.

Patrice Johnson, chair of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections, said in a press release she thinks the debate was an unusual event for judicial races.

“People don’t usually have a chance to see judicial candidates side by side in order to compare their ideologies and skill sets,” Johnson said. “It seemed like the right thing to do.”

Executive Orders in Elections

Moderators asked candidates for their thoughts on programs like President Joe Biden’s “Bidenbucks” executive order, which directed federal agencies to boost voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts without Congress’ approval. As The Federalist previously reported, the program has drawn criticism for targeting left-wing voting blocs and inviting third-party meddling in election administration, much like the “Zuckbucks” operation in 2020.

O’Grady appeared to cite a recent Republican National Committee lawsuit challenging Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s 2020 direction to local clerks to presume validity for absentee ballot signatures. As The Federalist reported, a judge struck down the guidance as unconstitutional in June.

“One of those lawsuits was actually against our own secretary of state, and that’s because she was violating the law, and instead was sending instructions out to the clerks’ office to ignore certain things,” O’Grady said. “So you have the law saying one thing, but then you have these administrative guidelines.”

Boonstra used Benson and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Mich., as examples of government overreach.

“I have stood up to our governor when she exercised what I thought were totalitarian actions during the pandemic,” Boonstra said. “I have stood up when the secretary of state, I think, was not following proper procedures on elections and ballots.”

Fink said the question is likely a federal issue, he could not answer definitely without hearing more about the situation.

“Presupposing that there’s a lack of congressional approval, it seems to me like the president’s probably in trouble on this one,” Fink said.

Taylor, a Detroit attorney, said the program seemed “unconstitutional” and called it “overreach.” She referenced her work on a 2022 lawsuit alleging voter fraud in Detroit, which was deemed “frivolous” and for which she and other plaintiffs were fined a total of $58,000.

“The law said one thing, and you had the secretary of state saying something different,” Taylor said.

Limiting Free Speech

The moderators asked candidates about limiting constitutional rights like free speech, while the question projected behind the candidates cited Attorney General Dana Nessel’s recent threat to prosecute a resident for posting supposedly “false” and “misleading” election information.

O’Grady asked if Nessel’s threat was part of the question, and the moderator explained he intentionally asked a broader question about free speech to avoid prejudicing the candidates should they oversee this case.

“With free speech or any type of right, there are or can be restrictions. And many of these restrictions, most of us historically have accepted,” O’Grady said. “Whether it’s a fundamental right, or whether it’s kind of a low-level liberty interest right. If it’s a fundamental right, then you’re looking at a strict scrutiny basis.”

Taylor still addressed Nessel’s threat, saying “weaponization” of the government is one of the reasons she is running for state Supreme Court.

“When I see something like that from Dana Nessel, it’s not surprising, because this is what they’ve been doing,” Taylor said. “Whether it’s a cease-and-desist, a grievance, a sanction, we are not going to back down.”

Boonstra said he thinks judges should consider original intent when deciding issues that could limit free speech.

“You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Boonstra said. “Ultimately, it comes down to, what did the framers of the Constitution mean when they drafted the language, and how does it apply to this world?”

The Constitution either protects something or it does not, according to Fink.

“I think the rights are what they are,” Fink said. “It either is or is not protected by the law. And the difficult task sometimes is to determine whether a given activity, or a given incident, is within or outside the right as originally understood by the drafters.”

Cleta Mitchell, founder of the Election Integrity Network, said in a press release she feels the debate was a valuable discussion for conservative Michiganders.

“This is the only opportunity for Republicans to hear from most of their state Supreme Court candidates at the same time,” Mitchell said. “It couldn’t come at a more important time.”

Kerri Toloczko, executive director of the EIN, applauded the candidates for placing themselves in the public eye.

“Transparency is one of the keys to clean and trusted elections,” Toloczko said in the press release. “Candidates for all relevant offices should be willing to put their policies and opinions in front of the voters.”

Similar Visions, Different Backgrounds

Boonstra told The Federalist the candidates offered “similar judicial philosophies,” with a “rule-of-law” approach of reading and applying the law rather than “legislating from the bench.”

“All of the candidates seemed to express a similar judicial philosophy while offering differing styles and presenting varying types and levels of experience,” Boonstra said. “The differences lie primarily in style, background, and experience.”

He cited his experience as a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals and previous work at a law firm.

“I therefore present a track record of written opinions from which the voters can determine how I will decide cases,” Boonstra said.

Boonstra cautioned that judicial candidates cannot debate public policy issues as can others, due to the danger of prejudicing themselves against future cases.

So when it comes to issues of election integrity and limiting speech, Boonstra said he would focus on “scrupulously” applying the Constitution and laws as written, enforcing separation of powers and delegation of authority, “rejecting government overreach,” and “respecting individual rights and liberties.”

Boonstra cited several of his election rulings including Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. Secretary of State, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, and Davis v. Secretary of State.

The Michigan Supreme Court is now “ideologically left-leaning,” according to Boonstra, so electing “judicial conservatives” could help bring the court back to “respectability” and the rule of law.

“Originalist” judges are currently losing cases in the state Supreme Court, Fink told The Federalist. He said he feels all the candidates described themselves “similarly” in their hopes for returning the court to ruling based on the written law.”

“I think all of us spoke to the desire to have predictable decision making as the court,” Fink said, “predictable according to the text of the law.”

Fink dismissed claims that experience qualifies someone for the job.

“‘Because a person has the job one rung below, he should get the job one run above.’ That’s not how the electorate works,” Fink said. “Suggestions that I don’t have a sufficient track record are obviously laughable.”

Fink said he is “very proud” of his record on election integrity, citing his sponsorship of House Bill 4491 which required county clerks to regularly clean deceased residents from the voter rolls.

“It required clerks to remove dead voters on a schedule that increases to daily frequency as the Election Day approaches,” Fink said. “That’s really the only significant piece of election integrity related legislation that got adopted in the last legislature, and that was my bill.”

Taylor told The Federalist she has practiced law for 13 years, citing her aforementioned lawsuit against the City of Detroit clerk, and her work defending MyPillow founder Mike Lindell against 2022 claims that his demand for records in Kent County, Michigan caused unnecessary burdens. A judge sanctioned Lindell in the case.

Taylor feels one of her strengths is “electability,” she said.

“I think that’s where we’ve been failing,” Taylor said. “I am somebody that will appeal not just to Republicans, but other groups, because it’s a nonpartisan race.”

Taylor said she is an “originalist” who believes in interpreting the Constitution and law literally, as intended at the time of passage.

“I’m vehemently opposed to the ideology that it is living and breathing, but that’s what we have right now. So I believe in the rule of law,” Taylor said.

She said she feels the justice system has bulldozed the 1st Amendment, referencing Nessel’s recent letter that threatened to prosecute a resident for raising questions of election integrity.

“We’re to the point where you can’t even state an opinion, which is, to me, at a dangerous point,” Taylor said. “This system has even been weaponized against lawyers who are fighting for our election integrity.”

The Federalist reached out to O’Grady, but did not hear back with comment in time for publication.

Who Else Is In The Race?

The other candidates are Matthew DePerno, who is seeking the Republican nomination, Kyra Harris Bolden, and Kimberly Ann Thomas, according to Livingston Daily. Both Thomas and Bolden are seeking the Democratic nomination. The Federalist reached out to all three, but only DePerno offered comment in time for publication.

DePerno ran unsuccessfully for Michigan attorney general in 2022. He is currently facing charges for mishandling voting equipment, according to The Detroit News.

DePerno told The Federalist he did not attend because he said organizers set a date without consulting his campaign, he was told the rules were “in flux,” and he was concerned it was “poorly conceived.”

“The forum was poorly conceived and did not have the best interest of the candidates in mind,” DePerno said. “I’m surprised other candidates attended.”

He was concerned the event would include questions which could prejudice candidates to future cases, he said, and he felt organizers “could not alleviate this concern.”

“I had concerns about questions regarding judicial philosophy that could later be used to disqualify a justice from future cases,” DePerno said. “This is a bad idea.”

Bolden took office at the behest of Whitmer in November 2022, replacing former Justice Bridget McCormack when she retired, according to Bridge Michigan. To finish McCormack’s term, which ends in 2029, she must run for reelection.

Thomas is a University of Michigan Law professor, according to Bridge Michigan. Whitmer appointed her to the Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform, which aims to “transform” Michigan’s juvenile justice system. She served on the task force from 2021-2022, and previously worked as a trial lawyer.

Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.

Read More From Original Article Here: MI Supreme Court Candidates Sound Off On Election 'Overreach'

" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."