NEWS RELEASE
MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL
************************
On Monday, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Judge Jane Beckering granted Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC) challenging Michigan’s voter registration database and maintenance. The RNC sued Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Director of Elections Jonathan Brater under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), citing high registration numbers in the State, and today Judge Beckering dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing while also noting in her opinion that the RNC’s claims lacked merit.
“The Court’s ruling is yet another example of the Republican National Committee’s strategy to present baseless, frivolous arguments both inside courtrooms as well as on social media,” said Nessel. “Michigan should be applauded as a leader in voter registration and maintenance of its voter rolls, not the target of meritless political lawsuits that serve no purpose but to incite uncertainty in our Democratic processes. That a major national political party is engaging in lawsuits that serve no purpose other than to undermine the public’s faith in our system of elections is shameful.”
In her opinion and order, Judge Beckering found fault in the RNC’s registered voter calculations, leading them to “inaccurately conclude” that the qualified voter file contained too many registrants, and further that even if their faulty census data were reliable, it “does not plausibly indicate” any violation of the law, and that the RNC’s requested relief of requiring state officials ensure that ineligible voters are removed “in telling fashion, flips the statutory mandate on its head,” because the statute requires Michigan to ensure that any eligible applicants are registered, while making a “reasonable effort” to remove ineligible voters from the voter rolls.
Judge Beckering continued in her opinion and order: “...the NVRA purposes to both protect electoral integrity and protect against unlawful voter disenfranchisement. Absent Plaintiff’s legal conclusions and unwarranted factual inferences, which this Court is not required to accept as true... there is no content in Plaintiff’s Complaint that states a plausible claim under the NVRA.”
************************
