Supreme Court Petition

RECEIVED by MSC 11/26/2020 2:44:13 AM
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT
ANGELIC JOHNSON, and

LINDA LEE TARVER, Supreme Court Case No. _______
PETITIONERS,
PETITION FOR
v
EXTRAORDINARY WRITS &
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official DECLARATORY RELIEF
capacity as Michigan Secretary of State;
JEANNETTE BRADSHAW, in her
official capacity as Chair of the Board of IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION
State Canvassers for Michigan; BOARD REQUESTED FOR DECISION
OF STATE CANVASSERS FOR BEFORE DECEMBER 8, 2020
MICHIGAN; and GRETCHEN
WHITMER, in her official capacity as
Governor of Michigan,
RESPONDENTS.
SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THOMAS MORE SOCIETY—

AMISTAD PROJECT
Ian A. Northon, Esq. (P65082) Erin Elizabeth Mersino, Esq. (P70886)

Gregory G. Timmer (P39396) GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER*
RHOADES MCKEE, PC* 5600 W. Mt. Hope Highway
55 Campau Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48917
Suite 300 (517) 322-3207
Grand Rapids, MI 49503 erin@greatlakesjc.org
Tel.: (616) 233-5125
Fax: (616) 233-5269 *for identification purposes only
ian@rhoadesmckee.com COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
ggtimmer@rhoadesmckee.com
Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)

AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER*
PO Box 131098
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113
Tel: (734) 635-3756
Fax: (801) 760-3901
rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
1. Petitioners Angelic Johnson and Dr. Linda Lee Tarver (collectively, “Petitioners”)
sue for Extraordinary Writs against Respondents, their employees, agents, and successors in office,
and Declaratory Relief, and in support allege the following upon information and belief:
INTRODUCTION
1. Our constitutional republic thrives only in proportion to the integrity and accuracy
of its elections. Elections replete with error and dishonesty threaten its survival.
2. Michigan citizens deserve honest, fair, and transparent elections from their state
officials. The process should be open, and their votes should be protected with privacy.
3. Michigan citizens deserve a process that ensures that their legal votes count but
illegal votes do not. In fact, the United States and Michigan Constitutions require it, and for good
reason, as shown further in this Petition.
4. The Michigan Constitution provides: “All political power is inherent in the people.”
Const 1963, art 1, § 1. In 2018, the people of this state exercised this power when they, as
registered voters, amended the constitution by approving Proposal 3. As a result of the passage of
Proposal 3, the Michigan Constitution now provides in relevant part:
(1) Every citizen of the United States who is an elector qualified to vote in Michigan
shall have the following rights:
(a) The right, once registered, to vote a secret ballot in all elections.
***
(h) The right to have the results of statewide elections audited, in such manner
as prescribed by law, to ensure the accuracy and integrity of elections.
All rights set forth in this subsection shall be self-executing. This subsection shall
be liberally construed in favor of voters’ rights in order to effectuate its purposes.
***
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this constitution or in the constitution or laws
of the United States the legislature shall enact laws to regulate the time, place and
manner of all nominations and elections, to preserve the purity of elections, to
preserve the secrecy of the ballot, to guard against abuses of the elective franchise,
and to provide for a system of voter registration and absentee voting. . . .
2
Const 1963, art 2, § 4 (emphasis added).
5. When the State legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, as
Michigan has done here, “the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and
one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal
dignity owed to each voter.” Bush v Gore, 531 US 98, 104 (2000) (emphasis added).
6. “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise.
Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to
vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one
person’s vote over that of another. . . . It must be remembered that ‘the right of suffrage can be
denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly
prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.’” Bush, 531 US at 104-05 (quoting Reynolds . Sims,
377 US 533, 555 (1964)). Permitting the counting of illegal votes creates the very debasement
and dilution of the weight of a citizen’s legal vote that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits.
7. The Michigan Constitution demands the same thing of its officials: “[n]o person
shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of
his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion,
race, color or national origin.” 1963 Const, art 1, § 2. Indeed, the Equal Protection Clause in the
Michigan Constitution is coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution. Shepherd Montessori Ctr Milan v Ann Arbor Charter Twp, 486 Mich 311, 318; 783
NW2d 695 (2010). Equal protection applies when a state either classifies voters in disparate ways
or unduly restricts the right to vote. Obama for America v Husted, 697 F3d 423, 428 (CA6, 2012).
Promote the Vote v Sec'y of State, Nos. 353977, 354096, 2020 Mich App LEXIS 4595, at *39 (Ct
App July 20, 2020).
3
8. Likewise, Due Process and bedrock principles of fundamental fairness require this
Court to look carefully behind the certification process at the actual ballot boxes, ballots, and other
election evidence. Indeed, the Due Process Clause of the Michigan Constitution commands that
“[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” Const
1963, art 1, § 17; see also, MCL 168.10.
9. This constitutional provision is nearly identical to the Due Process Clause of the
United States Constitution, see US Const, Am XIV, § 1. Accordingly, “[t]he due process guarantee
of the Michigan Constitution is coextensive with its federal counterpart.” Grimes v Van Hook-
Williams, 302 Mich App 521, 530; 839 NW2d 237 (2013); Quinn v State & Governor, No. 350235,
2020 Mich App LEXIS 5941, at *7 (Ct App Sep 10, 2020).
10. In Michigan, the Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, a registered Democrat, acting
unilaterally and without legislative approval, flooded the electoral process for the 2020 general
election with absentee ballots. The Secretary of State accomplished this partisan scheme by
unilaterally sending absentee ballot request forms to every household in Michigan with a registered
voter (no matter if the voter was still alive or lived at that address) and to non-registered voters
who were temporarily living in Michigan or who were not United States citizens.
11. Respondent Benson also permitted online requests for absentee ballots without
signature verification, thereby allowing for fraud in obtaining an absentee ballot.
12. Worse, Respondent Benson sent unsolicited ballots to countless thousands living in
Michigan and in some cases to citizens of other states.
13. The Michigan Legislature did not approve or authorize Benson’s unilateral
actions—and for good reason.
4
14. Predictably, a flood of unauthorized, absentee ballots ensured the dilution of lawful
votes and precipitated an unfair 2020 general election, as the evidence adduced from election day
at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan proves.
15. There are a few exceptional cases in which the Federal Constitution imposes a duty
or confers a power on a particular branch of a State’s government. Article II, section 1, clause 2
is one of them. It provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct,” electors for President and Vice President. US Const art II, § 1, cl 2. As the
Supreme Court explained in McPherson, 146 US 1 (1892), this provision of the Constitution
“convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to
define the method” of appointment. Id. at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme
for appointing Presidential electors defies this constitutional mandate.
16. Not even the Michigan Constitution can confer extra authority on the Secretary of
State to change or alter the election procedures established by the State legislature. McPherson,
146 US at 35 (acknowledging that the State legislature’s power in this area is such that it “cannot
be taken from them or modified” even through “their state constitutions”); see also Bush v Palm
Beach Cnty Canvassing Bd, 531 US 70; 121 S Ct 471 (2000).
17. And perhaps most important for purposes of the current situation, the Secretary of
State cannot rely on the declared pandemic as a rationale for circumventing legislative intent or
for unilaterally implementing procedures that undermined the integrity of the 2020 general
election. Carson v Simon, No 20-3139, 2020 US App LEXIS 34184, at *17-18 (CA8, Oct. 29,
2020) (“[T]he Secretary’s attempt to re-write the laws governing the deadlines for mail-in ballots
in the 2020 Minnesota presidential election is invalid. However well-intentioned and appropriate
5
from a policy perspective in the context of a pandemic during a presidential election, it is not the
province of a state executive official to re-write the state’s election code.”).
18. The rule of law, as established by the United States Constitution and the Michigan
Legislature, dictates that the Secretary of State follow these rules. There is no pandemic exception.
See Democratic Nat’l Comm v State Legislature, No 20A66, 2020 US LEXIS 5187, at *13 (Oct
26, 2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in denial of application for stay) (“‘[T]he design of electoral
procedures is a legislative task,’ including during a pandemic.”) (internal citation omitted).
19. This case seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental rights. It is a civil rights action
brought under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article II, section 1
of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Michigan
Constitution, Article 2, section 4 of the Michigan Constitution, and MCL 168.479, as Petitioners
have been “aggrieved by [a] determination made by the board of state canvassers.” Most
important, this case seeks to restore the purity and integrity of elections in Michigan so that “We
the people” can have confidence in their outcome, and thus, confidence that those who govern do
so legitimately.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the
Michigan Constitution of 1963, Michigan Court Rules 7.305 and 7.306, and MCL 168.1, et seq,
including 168.109 and 168.479.
21. The Michigan Constitution, Article 6, § 4 states that:
The supreme court shall have general superintending control over all courts; power
to issue, hear and determine prerogative and remedial writs; and appellate
jurisdiction as provided by rules of the supreme court.
Const 1963, art 6, § 4 (emphasis added).
6
22. “Mandamus is properly categorized as both an ‘extraordinary’ and a ‘prerogative’
writ.” O'Connell v Director of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 100, 891 NW 2d 240, 249 (2016).
Thus, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints for writs of mandamus,
although that jurisdiction may not exclusively belong to the Supreme Court. Id. at 106.
23. Here, MCL 168.479 expressly allows for “any person who feels aggrieved by any
determination made by the board of state canvassers have the determination reviewed by
mandamus or other appropriate remedy in the supreme court.” (emphasis added).
24. Petitioners demanded that Respondent Board of State Canvassers (“Board”)
exercise their constitutional duty and refuse to certify the general election without first conducting
an audit or first determining the accuracy and integrity of the underlying votes. Affidavit of Ian
Northon; Appendix 199 at ¶3, Ex A (Petitioners’ Demand Letter to Board).
25. MCL 168.878 expressly requires that Petitioners challenge a determination of the
Board of State Canvassers “by no other action than mandamus.”
26. Over Petitioners’ objections, Respondent Board certified the election on Monday,
November 23, 2020, giving immediate rise to Petitioners’ aggrieved status under MCL 168.479.
27. Petitioners’ claims for a temporary restraining order, declaratory judgment, relief
under MCR 7.316(A)(7), and other relief such as mandamus is also authorized by the general
doctrine of the Separation of Powers, and the Michigan Const 1963 art 2, § 4(1)(h), which deigns
to ensure the accuracy and integrity of elections as a fundamental right, not just for Petitioners, but
for all citizens of Michigan.
28. Venue is proper because the Secretary, Board, and Governor are seated in the
jurisdiction of this Court, and all Respondents reside and voted in the State of Michigan. Venue
is also proper under MCL 168.1, et seq. because the Michigan Legislature delegated a specific
7
type of election dispute and controversy over ballots and other election indicia to this Court by
statute. See also MCL 168.10 (allowing any single supreme court justice to issue restraining orders
over the ballots when there is danger of mishandling).
NECESSITY FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION

29. This Court previously granted immediate consideration of election-related cases.
Scott v Director of Elections, 490 Mich 888, 889; 804 NW 2d 119 (2011).1
30. Time is of the essence. Petitioners seek immediate consideration before the electors
convene on December 8, 2020.
PARTIES
31. Petitioner Angelic Johnson is an adult citizen of the United States and a resident of
Macomb County, Michigan. She is a member of Black Voices for Trump (hereinafter “Black
Voices”). She legally voted in the November 2020 General Election in the State of Michigan, and
she was a poll challenger at the TCF Center.
32. Petitioner Dr. Linda Lee Tarver is an adult citizen of the United States and a resident
of Ingham County, Michigan. Dr. Tarver is on the advisory board of Black Voices. Dr. Tarver
legally voted in the November 2020 General Election in the State of Michigan.
33. Respondent Jocelyn Benson is the Michigan Secretary of State. As the Secretary
of State, Respondent Benson is the State’s “chief election officer” with supervisory control over
1
See also, Order of November 23, 2020 in Constantino, et al, v City of Detroit, et al, Case Nos
162245 & (27)(38)(39). Under a similar post-election challenge, Justice Zahra recognized in his
concurrence: “[I] would order the most expedited consideration possible of the remaining issues.
. . .”;“I would have this Court retain jurisdiction [] under both its appellate authority and its
superintending authority under Const. 1963, art 6, § 4”; “Federal law imposes tight time
restrictions on Michigan’s certification of our electors. Plaintiffs should not have to file appeals
following our standard processes and procedure to obtain a final answer from this Court on such
weighty issues.”
8
local election officials in the performance of their election related duties, including supervisory
control over the election officials and workers at the TCF Center. MCL 168.21. Secretary Benson
holds the power to “direct local election officials as to the proper methods of conducting elections.”
MCL 168.31(1)(b), 168.509n. Secretary Benson is responsible for “[e]stablish[ing] a curriculum
for comprehensive training and accreditation of all [election] officials who are responsible for
conducting elections.” MCL 168.31(1)(j). Secretary Benson took an oath to support the United
States and Michigan Constitution, Mich Const Art 11, § 1, and has a clear legal duty to enforce
Michigan Election Law, the United States Constitution, and the Michigan Constitution. This clear
legal duty involves no exercise of judgment or discretion. Secretary Benson is sued in her official
capacity.
34. Respondent Board was created pursuant to the Mich Const art 2, § 7 and is required
to follow the United States and Michigan Constitutions and Michigan Election Law.
35. MCL 168.22c requires the members of the Board to take the following oath prior
to taking office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United
States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of office.”
Mich Const art XI, § 1.
36. The Board is required to “canvass the returns and determine the result of all
elections for electors of president and vice president of the United States, state officers, United
States senators, representatives in congress, circuit court judges, state senators, representatives
elected by a district that is located in more than 1 county, and other officers as required by law.”
MCL 841. Further, the Board shall record the results of a county canvass, but only upon receipt
of a properly certified certificate of a determination from a board of country canvassers. Id.
(emphasis added).
9
37. Respondent Jeannette Bradshaw is the Chair of the Board of State Canvassers for
Michigan. The Board is supposed to certify Michigan election results when appropriate. The
Board’s certification prompts the winning presidential candidate’s selection of the 16 Michigan
electors. But if the election process cannot be certified, then the task reverts back to the Michigan
Legislature under MCL 168.846 and the United States Constitution.
38. Respondent Gretchen Whitmer is the Governor of the State of Michigan. As
Michigan’s chief executive, by statute, she will ostensibly transmit the State’s certified results to
the US Department of State and Congress on or before December 8, 2020. This ministerial task is
corrupted, however, by the subordinate executive branch election officials and Respondents’
failure to meaningfully investigate and determine the proper lawful vote counts when the general
election was marked with inaccuracy and loss of integrity over absentee ballots and other serious
statutory violations such as failure to require bipartisan oversight at absent voting counting boards.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
39. The Nation held its general election on November 3, 2020 (“Election”).
40. Registered Voters in Michigan allegedly cast 5,539,302 total votes for president.2
41. Registered Voters in Michigan allegedly cast 3,507,410 absentee ballots according
to statewide records.
42. Petitioners’ experts as explained below reveal that at least 508,016 ballots in
Michigan were unlawful and did not conform to established Michigan Election Law. See generally,
Expert Reports of Matthew Braynard and Dr. Qianying “Jennie” Zhang, attached hereto in
Petitioner’s Appendix 278-300.
2
See Secretary of State, official election results at
https://mielections.us/election/results/2020GEN_CENR.html
10
43. This is a shocking total, exceeding 14.4% of the absentee ballots and over 9.1% of
the total popular vote count.
44. State records also report 878,102 total votes (absentee and in person) cast in Wayne
County, Michigan.
45. The TCF Center contained 134 Absent Voter Counting Boards (“AVCBs”), and it
was the only facility within Wayne County authorized to count ballots for the City of Detroit.
46. Wayne County used the TCF Center in downtown Detroit to consolidate, collect,
and tabulate all the ballots throughout the City of Detroit.
47. William Hartman is a member of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers. He
determined that about 71% of Detroit’s AVCBs were left unbalanced and unexplained. See
Affidavit of William Hartman; Appendix 17-18 at ¶6 (emphasis in original).
48. Monica Palmer, Chairperson of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, said under
oath that more than 70% of the AVCBs in Detroit did not balance and many had no explanation to
why they did not balance. See Affidavit of Monica Palmer, Appendix 24 at ¶16.
49. Palmer and Hartman first refused to certify the election results based on these and
other serious discrepancies and irregularities. Affidavit of William Hartman; Appendix 18 at ¶7.
50. Before the county canvassing deadline, the two Republican members of the Wayne
County Board of Canvasser refused to certify the improper votes from Wayne County.3
51. The two canvassers changed their minds after being given inaccurate assurances of
a state-wide audit and under duress, only to change them again the next day once they were safely
3
After being harassed and berated for several hours, and based on assurances of a full and
independent audit, the two Republican Wayne County Board of Canvasser Members capitulated
under inaccurate inducement, duress, and coercion. See Affidavits of Palmer and Hartmann, supra.
11
outside and had consulted with independent counsel. Affidavit of William Hartman; Appendix
19 at ¶12; Affidavit of Monica Palmer, Appendix 24 at ¶20.
52. Among other problems, Palmer and Hartmann “found” 14,000 unaccounted for
votes, which ostensibly changed the outcome of at least one judicial race, but left unresolved many
unanswered questions.
53. Other eyewitnesses as outlined below and in the attached Appendix saw serious
irregularities in Detroit, elsewhere in Wayne County, and throughout the State.
I. Respondents’ Failure to Allow Meaningful Observation Offends the State

Statute and the Michigan and Federal Constitutions.
54. Michigan law generally allows the public the right to observe the counting of
ballots. See MCL 168.765a(12)(“At all times, at least 1 election inspector from each major political
party must be present at the absent voter counting place and the policies and procedures adopted
by the secretary of state regarding the counting of absent voter ballots must be followed.”).
55. The Michigan Constitution provides all lawful voters with “[t]he right to have the
results of statewide elections audited, in such a manner as prescribed by law, to ensure the accuracy
and integrity of elections.” Const 1963, art 2, § 4(1)(h).
56. Indeed, “[a]ll rights set forth in this subsection shall be self-executing. This
subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of voters’ rights in order to effectuate its purposes.”
Id. (emphasis added).
57. The public’s right to observe applies to counting both in-person and absentee
ballots.4
4
Regrettably, Defendants and their agents have exclusive possession of the ballots, ballot boxes,
and other indicia of voting irregularities so a meaningful audit cannot timely occur. Normally, “[a]
person requesting access to voted ballots is entitled to a response from the public body within 5 to
12
58. Respondents and their agents failed to grant meaningful observation opportunities
to the public over the absentee ballots. See Affidavit of Angelic Johnson, Appendix 26 at ¶12;
Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 8 at ¶¶37-55; Affidavit of G Kline Preston IV,
Appendix 53 at ¶8; Affidavit of Articia Boomer, Appendix 65 at ¶21; Affidavit of Phillip
O’Halloran, Appendix 74 at ¶¶18-19; Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix 95 at ¶3; Affidavit
of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 97 at ¶6; Affidavit of Andrew Sitto, Appendix 58 at ¶¶23; Affidavit
of Kristina Karamo, Appendix 61 at ¶5; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 101 at ¶35, 102 at
¶42; Affidavit of Cassandra Brown Appendix 109 at ¶33; Affidavit of Adam di Angeli, Appendix
122 at ¶30; Affidavit of Kayla Toma Appendix 144 at ¶¶14-15, 146 at ¶21, 147 at ¶¶31-32;
Affidavit of Matthew Mikolajczak, Appendix 156; Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi, Appendix
161 at ¶¶3, 5, 162 at ¶8; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer Appendix 172 at ¶¶4-5, 173 at ¶¶6-9.
59. Wayne County is the most populous county in Michigan.
60. Detroit is the largest city in Wayne County.
61. The City of Detroit’s observation procedures, for example, failed to ensure
transparency and integrity as it did not allow the public to see election officials during key points
of absentee ballot processing in the AVCBs at TCF Arena (f/k/a Cobo Hall). Id.
62. These irregularities were repeated elsewhere in Wayne County, including in Canton
Township, and throughout the State. See generally, Affidavits of Cassandra Brown Appendix 109
at ¶34; Lucille Ann Huizinga, Appendix 185 at ¶31; Laurie Ann Knott, Appendix 180 at ¶¶34-
35; Marilyn Jean Nowak Appendix 189 at ¶17; Marlene K. Hager, Appendix 192 at ¶¶19-23; and
10 business days; however, the public body in possession of the ballots may not provide access for
inspection or copying until 30 days after certification of the election by the relevant board of
canvassers.” Op.Atty.Gen.2010, No. 7247, 2010 WL 2710362.
13
Sandra Sue Workman Appendix 198 at ¶33 (allegedly sending ballots from Grand Rapids to TCF
Center to be processed and counted).
63. For instance, when absentee ballots arrived, the ballots should have been in an
envelope, signed, sealed (and delivered) by the actual voter. Often it was not.
64. Ballots were taken from their envelopes and inspected to determine whether any
deficiencies would obstruct the ballot from being fed through a tabulation machine. If any
deficiencies existed (or were created by tampering), the ballot was hand duplicated.
65. There are credible allegations that Democrat officials and election workers
repeatedly scanned ballots in high-speed scanners, often counting the same ballot more than once.
Affidavit of Articia Boomer, Appendix 64 at ¶¶10-11, 13; Affidavit of William Carzon, Appendix
140 at ¶8; Affidavit of Matthew Mikolajczak Appendix 154; Affidavit of Melissa Carone,
Appendix 159 at ¶¶3-4.
66. The evidence will also show that these hand duplication efforts ignored the
legislative mandate to have one person from each major party sign every duplicated vote (i.e., one
Republican and one Democrat had to sign each “duplicated” ballot and record it in the official poll
book).
67. Several poll watchers, inspectors, and other whistleblowers witnessed the surge of
unlawful practices described above. Affidavit of Melissa Carone, Appendix 159 at ¶9.
68. The evidence shows the unlawful practices provided cover for careless or
unscrupulous officials or workers to mark choices for any unfilled elections or questions on the
ballot, potentially and substantially affecting down ballot races where there are often significant
undervotes, or causing the ballots to be discarded due to overvotes.
14
II. Summary of Election Malfeasance at the TCF Center Shows Widespread
Problems that only this Court can Alleviate in the Short Term.
69. There were many issues of mistake, fraud, and other malfeasance at the TCF Center
during the Election and during the counting process thereafter.
70. On election day, election officials at the TCF Center systematically processed and
counted ballots from voters whose names failed to appear in either the Qualified Voter File
(“QVF”) or in the supplemental sheets. When a voter’s name could not be found, the election
worker assigned the ballot to a random name already in the QVF to a person who had not voted.
See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 7 at ¶33; Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix
95 at ¶7.
71. On election day, election officials at the TCF Center instructed election workers to
not verify signatures on absentee ballots, to backdate absentee ballots, and to process such ballots
regardless of their validity. See Affidavit of Jessy Jacobs, Appendix 14 at ¶15.
72. After the statutory deadlines passed and local officials had announced the last
absentee ballots had been received, another batch of unsecured and unsealed ballots, without
envelopes, arrived in unsecure trays at the TCF Center.
73. There were tens of thousands of these late-arriving absentee ballots, and apparently
every ballot was counted and attributed only to Democratic candidates. See Affidavit of John
McGrath Appendix 135 at ¶8.
74. Election officials at the TCF Center instructed election workers to process ballots
that appeared after the election deadline and to inaccurately report or backdate those ballots as
having been received before the November 3, 2020, deadline. See Affidavit of Jessy Jacobs,
Appendix 14 at ¶17.
15
75. Election officials at the TCF Center systematically used inaccurate information to
process ballots. Affidavit of Cassandra Brown, Appendix 109 at ¶33.
76. Many times, the election workers overrode the software by inserting new names
into the QVF after the election deadline or recording these new voters as having a birthdate of
“1/1/1900,” which is the “default” birthday. See Affidavit of John McGrath Appendix 135 at ¶8;
Affidavit of Kristina Karamo Appendix 61 at ¶6; Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix 95 at
¶¶10-12, 96 at ¶16; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 103 at ¶¶52-53; Affidavit of Braden
Giacobazzi Appendix 163 at ¶10; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer Appendix 174 at ¶13.
77. Each day before the election, City of Detroit election workers and employees
coached voters to vote for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party candidates. See Affidavit of Jessy
Jacobs, Appendix 13 at ¶8.
78. These workers, employees, and so-called consultants encouraged voters to vote a
straight Democratic Party ticket. These election workers went over to the voting booths with voters
to watch them vote and to coach them as to which candidates they should vote for. See Affidavit
of Jessy Jacobs, Appendix 13 at ¶8.
79. Before and after the statutory deadline, unsecured ballots arrived at the TCF Center
loading garage, loose on the floor not in sealed ballot boxes—with no chain of custody and often
with no secrecy envelopes. Affidavit of Articia Boomer, Appendix 63 at ¶8, 64 at ¶¶9, 18.
80. Election officials and workers at the TCF Center duplicated ballots by hand without
allowing poll challengers to check if the duplication was accurate. See Affidavit Andrew Sitto,
Appendix 57 at ¶9; Affidavit of Phillip O’Halloran Appendix 75 at ¶22; Affidavit of Eugene
Dixon, Appendix 113 at ¶5.
16
81. In fact, election officials repeatedly obstructed poll challengers from observing.
See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 8-11 at ¶¶37-55; Affidavit of Janice Hermann,
Appendix 81 at ¶5; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 100 at ¶29, 102 at ¶42; Affidavit of
Cassandra Brown, Appendix 109 at ¶33.
82. Election officials violated the plain language of the law MCL 168.765a by
permitting thousands of ballots to be filled out by hand and duplicated on site without oversight
from bipartisan poll challengers.
83. After poll challengers started uncovering the statutory violations at the TCF Center,
election officials and workers locked credentialed challengers out of the counting room so they
could not observe the process, during which time tens of thousands of ballots, if not more, were
improperly processed. See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 8-11 at ¶¶37-55; Affidavit
of Janice Hermann, Appendix 81 at ¶5; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 100 at ¶29, 101 at
¶32, 102 at ¶42; Affidavit of Cassandra Brown, Appendix 109 at ¶¶33; Affidavit of Anna England,
Appendix 115 at ¶¶5,7; Affidavit of Matthew Mikolajczak Appendix 155; Affidavit of Braden
Giacobazzi, Appendix 162 at ¶6.
III. Suspicious Funding and Training of Election Workers
84. In September, the Detroit City council approved a $1 million contract for the
staffing firm P.I.E. Management, LLC to hire up to 2,000 workers to work the polls and to staff
the ballot counting machines at the TCF Center. P.I.E. Management, LLC is owned and controlled
by a Democratic Party operative.
85. A week after approval, P.I.E. Management, LLC began advertising for workers,
stating, “Candidates must be 16 years or older. Candidates are required to attend a 3-hour training
session before the General Election. The position offers two shifts and pay-rates: 1) From 7 am to
17
7 pm at $600.00; and 2) From 10 pm to 6 am at $650.” Consequently, these temporary workers
were earning at least $50 per hour—far exceeding prevailing rates at most rural communities.
86. Upon information and belief, the evidence will show that this money and much
more came from a single private source: Mark Zuckerberg and his spouse, through the charity
called CTCL, which paid over $400 million nationwide to Democrat-favoring election officials
and municipalities. See generally, Expert Report of James Carlson, Appendix 245-276.
87. The improper private funding to Michigan exceeded $9.8 million. Id. at 252 and
255.
IV. Forging Ballots on the QVF
88. Whistleblowers observed election officials processing ballots at the TCF Center
without confirming that the voter was eligible to vote. See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen,
Appendix 4 at ¶12.
89. Whistleblowers observed election officials assigning ballots to different voters,
causing a ballot being counted for a non-eligible voter by assigning it to a voter in the QVF who
had not yet voted. See Affidavit of John McGrath Appendix 135 at ¶8; Affidavit of Kristina
Karamo Appendix 61 at ¶6; Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix 95 at ¶¶10-12, 96 at ¶16;
Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 103 at ¶¶52-53; Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi Appendix
163 at ¶10; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer Appendix 174 at ¶13.
V. Changing Dates on Ballots
90. All lawful absentee ballots were supposed to be in the QVF system by 9:00 p.m. on
November 3, 2020.
91. This deadline had to bet met to ensure an accurate final list of absentee voters who
returned their ballots before the statutory deadline of 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020.
18
92. To have enough time to process the absentee ballots, Respondents told polling
locations to collect the absentee ballots from the drop-boxes every hour on November 3, 2020.
93. On November 4, 2020, a City of Detroit election whistleblower at the TCF Center
was told to improperly pre-date the receive date for absentee ballots that were not in the QVF as
if they had been received on or before November 3, 2020. The Whistleblower swore she was told
to alter the information in the QVF to inaccurately show that the absentee ballots had been timely
received. She estimates that this was done to thousands of ballots. See Affidavit of Jessy Jacobs,
Appendix 14 at ¶17.
VI. Double Voting
94. An election worker in the City of Detroit observed several people who came to the
polling place to vote in-person, but they had already applied for an absentee ballot. See Affidavit
of Jessy Jacobs, Appendix 13 at ¶10; Affidavit of Anna England, Appendix 124-125 at ¶45.
95. Election officials allowed these people to vote in-person, and they did not require
them to return the mailed absentee ballot or sign an affidavit that the voter lost or “spoiled” the
mailed absentee ballot as required by law and policy.
96. This illicit process allowed people to vote in person and to send in an absentee
ballot, thereby voting twice. This “double voting” was made possible by the unlawful ways in
which election officials were counting and inputting ballots at the TCF Center from across the
City’s several polling places.
97. The Secretary of State’s absentee ballot scheme exacerbated this “double voting,”
as set forth further in this Petition. See also, Expert Report of Matthew Braynard, Appendix 282
at ¶6.
19
VII. First Wave of New Ballots
98. Early in the morning of November 4, 2020, tens of thousands of ballots were
suddenly brought into the counting room at the TCF Center through the back door. See Affidavit
of John McGrath Appendix 134 at ¶4 (around 3:00 a.m.); Affidavit of Articia Boomer, Appendix
64 at ¶18 (around 4:00 a.m.); Affidavit of William Carzon, Appendix 141 at ¶11 (around 4:00
a.m.); Affidavit Andrew Sitto, Appendix 57 at ¶16 (alleges about 4:30 a.m.).
99. These new ballots were brought to the TCF Center by vehicles with out-of-state
license plates. See Affidavit of Andrew Sitto, Appendix 57 at ¶15.
100. Whistleblowers claim that all of these new ballots were cast for Joe Biden. See
Affidavit of Andrew Sitto, Appendix 57 at ¶¶17-18.
101. Upon information and belief, inexplicably, these ballots still do not share or have
the markings establishing the proper chain of custody from valid precincts and clerks and are
among the approximately 70% of unmatched AVCB errors identified by Palmer and Hartmann.
VIII. Second Wave of New Ballots
102. The ballot counters needed to check every ballot to confirm that the name on the
ballot matched the name on the electronic poll list—the list of all persons who had registered to
vote on or before November 1, 2020 (the QVF).
103. The ballot counters were also provided with supplemental sheets which had the
names of all persons who had registered to vote on either November 2, 2020 or November 3, 2020.
104. The validation process for a ballot requires the name on the ballot match with a
registered voter on either the QVF or the supplemental sheets.
105. At around 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4, 2020, several more boxes of
ballots were brought to the TCF Center. This was a second wave of new ballots.
20
106. Election officials instructed the ballot counters to use the “default” date of birth of
January 1, 1900, on all of these newly appearing ballots. See Affidavit of John McGrath Appendix
135 at ¶8; Affidavit of Kristina Karamo Appendix 61 at ¶6; Affidavit of Robert Cushman,
Appendix 95 at ¶¶10-12, 96 at ¶16; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 103 at ¶¶52-53;
Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi Appendix 163 at ¶10; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer Appendix 174
at ¶13.
107. None of the names on these new ballots corresponded with any registered voter on
the QVF or the supplemental sheets. See Affidavit of John McGrath, Appendix 135 at ¶¶7, 14,
136 at ¶¶16-18.
108. Despite election rules requiring all absentee ballots to be inputted into the QVF
system before 9:00 p.m. the day before, election workers inputted these new ballots into the QVF,
manually adding each voter to the list after the deadline.
109. Upon information and belief, almost all of these new ballots were entered into the
QVF using the “default” date of birth of January 1, 1900. See Affidavit of John McGrath,
Appendix 135 at ¶8; Affidavit of Kristina Karamo, Appendix 61 at ¶6; Affidavit of Robert
Cushman, Appendix 95 at ¶¶10-12, 96 at ¶16; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 103 at ¶¶52-
53; Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi, Appendix 163 at ¶10; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer, Appendix
174 at ¶13.
110. These newly received ballots were either fabricated or apparently cast by persons
who were not registered to vote before the polls closed at 8:00 p.m. on election day.
111. Upon information and belief, inexplicably, these ballots still do not share or have
the markings establishing the proper chain of custody from valid precincts and clerks and are
among the approximately 70% of unmatched AVCB errors identified by Palmer and Hartmann.
21
See generally Affidavits of Monica Palmer and William Hartman, Appendix 17 at ¶6 and 24 at
¶14.
112. This means there were more votes tabulated than there were ballots in over 71% of
the 134 AVCBs in Detroit. That equates to over 95 AVCB being significantly “off.” Id.
113. According to public testimony before the state canvassers on November 23, City of
Detroit Election Consultant Daniel Baxter admitted in some instances the imbalances exceeded
600 votes per AVCB. He did not reveal the total disparity.
IX. Concealing the Malfeasance in Violation of Michigan law.
114. Many election challengers were denied access to observe the counting process by
election officials at the TCF Center. See Affidavit of Angelic Johnson, Appendix 26 at ¶12;
Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 8 at ¶¶37-55; Affidavit of G Kline Preston IV,
Appendix 53 at ¶8; Affidavit of Articia Boomer, Appendix 65 at ¶21; Affidavit of Phillip
O’Halloran, Appendix 74 at ¶¶18-19; Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix 95 at ¶3; Affidavit
of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 97 at ¶6; Affidavit of Andrew Sitto, Appendix 58 at ¶23; Affidavit
of Kristina Karamo, Appendix 61 at ¶5; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 101 at ¶35, 102 at
¶42; Affidavit of Cassandra Brown Appendix 109 at ¶33; Affidavit of Adam di Angeli Appendix
122 at ¶30; Affidavit of Kayla Toma Appendix 144 at ¶¶14-15, 146 at ¶21, 147 at ¶¶31-32;
Affidavit of Matthew Mikolajczak Appendix 156; Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi Appendix 161
at ¶¶3, 5, 162 at ¶8; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer Appendix 172 at ¶¶4-5, 173 at ¶¶6-9.
115. After denying access to the counting rooms, election officials at the TCF Center
used large pieces of cardboard to block the windows to the counting room, thereby preventing
anyone from watching the ballot counting process. See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix
22
10 at ¶52; Affidavit of John McGrath Appendix 135 at ¶10; Affidavit of Andrew Sitto, Appendix
58 at ¶22.
116. Respondents have continued to conceal their efforts by refusing meaningful
bipartisan access to inspect the ballots. Even if Republicans were involved in oversight roles by
statute (such as with the Wayne County Canvassing Board), the Republican members have been
harassed, threatened, and doxed (including publicly revealing where their children go to school)
to pressure them to capitulate and violate their statutory duties. This conduct is beyond the pale
and shocking to the conscience. See Affidavit of William Hartman; Appendix 18 at ¶8; Affidavit
of Monica Palmer, Appendix 24-25 at ¶¶18-22, and 24; Affidavit of Dr. Phillip O’Halloran,
Appendix 76 at ¶24-25; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 99 at ¶23, 100 at ¶¶27, 30-31, 101
at ¶¶36-37; Affidavit of Eugene Dixon, Appendix 114 at ¶9; Affidavit of Matthew Mikolajczak,
Appendix 156; Affidavit of Mellissa Carone Appendix 160 at ¶12; Affidavit of Braden
Giacobazzi, Appendix 161 at ¶3, 162 at ¶7, 163 at 12, 164 at ¶¶12-14; Affidavit of Kaya Toma
Appendix 144 at ¶15; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer Appendix 172 at ¶¶4-5, 173 at ¶¶6-9.
X. Unsecured QVF Access further Violating MCL 168.765a, et seq.
117. Whenever an absentee voter application or in-person absentee voter registration
was finished, election workers at the TCF Center were instructed to input the voter’s name,
address, and date of birth into the QVF system.
118. The QVF system can be accessed and edited by any election processor with proper
credentials in the State of Michigan at any time and from any location with Internet access.
119. This access permits anyone with the proper credentials to edit when ballots were
sent, received, and processed from any location with Internet access.
23
120. Many of the counting computers within the counting room had icons that revealed
that they were connected to the Internet.
121. Respondent Benson executed a contract to give a private partisan group, Rock the
Vote, unfettered real-time access to Michigan’s QVF. See Rock the Vote Agreement, Appendix
327.
122. She sold or gave Michigan citizens’ private voter information to private groups in
furtherance of her own partisan goals.
123. Benson and the State repeatedly concealed this unlawful contract and have refused
to tender a copy despite several lawful requests for the government contract under FOIA.
124. Improper access to the QVF was one of the chief categories of serious concern
identified by the Michigan Auditor General’s Report, Appendix 207 at material finding #2.
125. Upon information and belief, Benson made it worse, not better. In the most
charitable light, this was incredibly naïve. More cynically, Benson likely acted in furtherance of
her partisan political goals and in dereliction of her statutory and constitutional duties.
XI. Unsecured Ballots
126. A poll challenger witnessed tens of thousands of ballots, and possibly more, being
delivered to the TCF Center that were not in any approved, sealed, or tamper-proof container.
127. Large quantities of ballots were delivered to the TCF Center in what appeared to
be mail bins with open tops. See Affidavit of Daniel Gustafson, Appendix 112 at ¶¶4-6; see the
photo of the TCF Center below:
24
128. These ballot bins and containers did not have lids, were unsealed, and could not
have a metal seal. See Affidavit of Rhonda Webber, Appendix 43 at ¶3.
129. Some ballots were found unsecured on the public sidewalk outside the Department
of Elections in the City of Detroit, reinforcing the claim that boxes of ballots arrived at the TCF
Center unsealed, with no chain of custody, and with no official markings. A photograph of ballots
found on the sidewalk outside the Department of Elections appears below:
130. The City of Detroit held a drive-in ballot drop off where individuals would drive
up and drop their ballots into an unsecured tray. No verification was done. This was not a secured
drop-box with video surveillance. To encourage this practice, free food and beverages were
provided to those who dropped off their ballots using this method. See Affidavit of Cynthia Cassell
Appendix 28 at ¶3 and 29 ¶¶9-10.
25
XII. Breaking the Seal of Secrecy Undermines Constitutional Liberties under
Const Art 2, § 4(1)(a).
131. Many times, election officials at the TCF Center broke the seal of secrecy for ballots
to check which candidates the individual voted for on his or her ballot, thereby violating the voter’s
expectation of privacy. See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen; Appendix 5 at ¶16-18, 20.
132. Voters in Michigan have a constitutional right to open elections, and the Michigan
Legislature provided them the right to vote in secret. Respondents’ conduct, together with others,
violates both of these hallmark principles. See Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 99 at ¶18.
133. In Michigan, it is well-settled that the election process is supposed to be transparent
and the voter’s ballot secret, not the other way around.
134. Here, Respondents’ absentee ballot scheme has improperly revealed voters’
preferences exposing Petitioners’ and similarly-situated voters to dilution or spoliation while
simultaneously obfuscating the inner workings of the election process.
135. Now the Respondents seek to perform an “audit” on themselves.
XIII. Statewide Irregularities Over Absentee Ballots Reveal Widespread Mistake or

Fraud.
136. Whenever a person requested an absentee ballot either by mail or in-person, that
person needed to sign the absentee voter application.
137. When the voter returned their absentee ballot to be counted, the voter was required
to sign the outside of the envelope that contained the ballot.
138. Election officials who process absentee ballots are required to compare the
signature on the absentee ballot application with the signature on the absentee ballot envelope. See
Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 103 at ¶60.
26
139. Election officials at the TCF Center, for example, instructed workers not to validate
or compare signatures on absentee ballot applications and absentee ballot envelopes to ensure their
authenticity and validity. See Affidavit of Jessy Jacobs, Appendix 14 at ¶15.
140. Michigan law requires absentee votes to be counted by election inspectors in a
particular manner. It requires, in relevant part:
(10) The oaths administered under subsection (9) must be placed in an envelope
provided for the purpose and sealed with the red state seal. Following the election,
the oaths must be delivered to the city or township clerk. Except as otherwise
provided in subsection (12), a person in attendance at the absent voter counting
place or combined absent voter counting place shall not leave the counting place
after the tallying has begun until the polls close. Subject to this subsection, the
clerk of a city or township may allow the election inspectors appointed to an absent
voter counting board in that city or township to work in shifts. A second or
subsequent shift of election inspectors appointed for an absent voter counting board
may begin that shift at any time on election day as provided by the city or township
clerk. However, an election inspector shall not leave the absent voter counting
place after the tallying has begun until the polls close. If the election inspectors
appointed to an absent voter counting board are authorized to work in shifts, at no
time shall there be a gap between shifts and the election inspectors must never leave
the absent voter ballots unattended. At all times, at least 1 election inspector
from each major political party must be present at the absent voter counting
place and the policies and procedures adopted by the secretary of state
regarding the counting of absent voter ballots must be followed. A person who
causes the polls to be closed or who discloses an election result or in any manner
characterizes how any ballot being counted has been voted in a voting precinct
before the time the polls can be legally closed on election day is guilty of a felony.
MCL 168.765a (10) (emphasis added).
141. Under MCL 168.31, the Secretary of State can issue instructions and rules
consistent with Michigan statutes and the Constitution that bind local election authorities.
Likewise, under MCL 168.765a(13), the Secretary can develop instructions consistent with the
law for the conduct of Absent Voter Counting Boards (“AVCB”) or combined AVCBs. “The
instructions developed under [] subsection [13] are binding upon the operation of an absent voter
counting board or combined absent voter counting board used in an election conducted by a county,
city, or township.” MCL 168.765a(13).
27
142. Benson also promulgated an election manual that requires bipartisan oversight:
Each ballot rejected by the tabulator must be visually inspected by an election

inspector to verify the reason for the rejection. If the rejection is due to a false
read the ballot must be duplicated by two election inspectors who have
expressed a preference for different political parties. Duplications may not be
made until after 8 p.m. in the precinct (place the ballot requiring duplication in the
auxiliary bin). At an AV counting board duplications can be completed throughout
the day. NOTE: The Bureau of Elections has developed a video training series that
summarizes key election day management issues, including a video on Duplicating
Ballots. These videos can be accessed at the Bureau of Elections web site at
www.michigan.gov/elections; under “Information for Election Administrators”;
Election Day Management Training Videos. Election Officials Manual, Michigan
Bureau of Elections, Chapter 8, last revised October 2020.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/VIII_Absent_Voter_County_Boards_265998_7.pdf
(emphasis added).
143. Election officials at the TCF Center flouted § 168.765a because there were not, at
all times, at least one inspector from each political party at the absentee voter counting place.
Rather, the many tables assigned to precincts under the authority of the AVCB were staffed by
inspectors for only one party. Those inspectors alone were deciding on the processing and
counting of ballots. See Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 98 at ¶9; Affidavit of Eugene
Dixon, Appendix 113 at ¶5; Affidavit of Mellissa Carone, Appendix 159 at ¶5.
144. This processing included the filling out of brand new “cure” or “duplicate” ballots.
The process the election officials sanctioned worked in this way. When an absentee ballot was
processed and approved for counting, it was fed into a counting machine. Some ballots were
rejected—that is, they were a “false read”—because of tears, staining (such as coffee spills), over-
votes, and other errors. In some of these cases, inspectors could visually inspect the rejected ballot
and determine what was causing the machine to find a “false read.” When this happened, the
inspectors could duplicate the ballot, expressing the voter’s intent in a new ballot that could then
be fed into the machine and counted.
28
145. Under § 168.765a and the Secretary of State’s controlling manual, as cited above,
an inspector from each major party must be present and must sign to show that they approve of the
duplication.
146. Rather than following this controlling mandate, the AVCB was allowing a
Democratic Party inspector only to fill out a duplicate. Republicans would sign only “if possible.”
See Affidavit of Patricia Blackmer, Appendix 90 at ¶11. A photograph evidencing this illicit
process appears below:
147. The TCF Center election officials allowed hundreds or thousands of ballots to be
“duplicated” solely by the Democratic Party inspectors and then counted in violation of Michigan
election law. See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 8-11 at ¶¶37-55; Affidavit of Janice
Hermann, Appendix 81 at ¶¶4-5; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 100 at ¶29, 102 at ¶42;
Affidavit of Cassandra Brown, Appendix 109 at ¶¶33; Affidavit of Phillip O’Halloran, Appendix
75 at ¶22; Affidavit of Anna England, Appendix 115 at ¶8.
148. According to eyewitness accounts, election officials at the TCF Center
habitually and systematically disallowed election inspectors from the Republican Party to be
present in the voter counting place and refused access to election inspectors from the
29
Republican party to be within a close enough distance from the absentee voter ballots to see
for whom the ballots were cast.
149. Election officials at the TCF Center refused entry to official election inspectors
from the Republican Party into the counting place to observe the counting of absentee voter ballots.
Election officials even physically blocked and obstructed election inspectors from the Republican
party by adhering large pieces of cardboard to the transparent glass doors so the counting of absent
voter ballots was not viewable. See Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 8-11 at ¶¶37-55;
Affidavit of Janice Hermann, Appendix 81 at ¶5; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 100 at
¶29, 101 at ¶32, 102 at ¶42; Affidavit of Cassandra Brown, Appendix 109 at ¶¶33; Affidavit of
Anna England, Appendix 115 at ¶¶5,7; Affidavit of Matthew Mikolajczak, Appendix 155;
Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi, Appendix 162 at ¶6.
150. Absentee ballots from military members, who tend to vote Republican in the
general elections, were counted separately at the TCF Center. All (100%) of the military absentee
ballots had to be duplicated by hand because the form of the ballot was such that election workers
could not run them through the tabulation machines used at the TCF Center. See Affidavit of Janice
Hermann, Appendix 82 at ¶16.
151. These military ballots were supposed to be the last ones counted, but there was
another large drop of ballots that occurred during the counting of the military absentee ballots. Id.
see also, Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix 95 at ¶¶4-5.
152. Worse, the military absentee ballot count at the TCF Center occurred after the
Republican challengers and poll watchers were kicked out of the counting room. Id. Affidavit of
Jennifer Seidl, Appendix 102 at ¶42.
30
153. The Michigan Legislature also requires City Clerks to post the following
absentee voting information anytime an election is conducted that involves a state or federal
office:
a. The clerk must post before 8:00 a.m. on Election Day: 1) the number of
absent voter ballots distributed to absent voters 2) the number of absent voter ballots
returned before Election Day and 3) the number of absent voter ballots delivered
for processing.
b. The clerk must post before 9:00 p.m. on Election Day: 1) the number of
absent voter ballots returned on Election Day 2) the number of absent voter ballots
returned on Election Day which were delivered for processing 3) the total number
of absent voter ballots returned both before and on Election Day and 4) the total
number of absent voter ballots returned both before and on Election Day which
were delivered for processing.
c. The clerk must post immediately after all precinct returns are complete: 1)
the total number of absent voter ballots returned by voters and 2) the total number
of absent voter ballots received for processing.
See MCL 168.765(5).
154. Upon information and belief, the clerk for the City of Detroit failed to post by 8:00
a.m. on “Election Day” the number of absentee ballots distributed to absent voters and failed to
post before 9:00 p.m. the number of absent voter ballots returned both before and on “Election
Day.”
155. According to Michigan Election law, all absentee voter ballots must be returned to
the clerk before polls close at 8 p.m. MCL 168.764a. Any absentee voter ballots received by the
clerk after the close of the polls on election day should not be counted.
156. The Michigan Legislature allows for early counting of absentee votes before the
closings of the polls for large jurisdictions, such as the City of Detroit and Wayne County.
157. Upon information and belief, receiving tens of thousands more absentee ballots in
the early morning hours after Election Day and after the counting of the absentee ballots had
already concluded, without proper oversight, with tens of thousands of ballots attributed to just
31
one candidate, Joe Biden, confirms that election officials failed to follow proper election
protocols and established Michigan election law. See Affidavit of John McGrath Appendix
134 at ¶4; Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix 96 at ¶14.
158. Missing the statutory deadline proscribed by the Michigan Legislature for turning
in the absentee ballot or timely updating the QVF invalidates the vote under Michigan Election
Law and the United States Constitution.
159. Poll challengers observed election workers and supervisors writing on ballots
themselves to alter them, apparently manipulating spoiled ballots by hand and then counting
the ballots as valid, counting the same ballot more than once, adding information to
incomplete affidavits accompanying absentee ballots, counting absentee ballots returned late,
counting unvalidated and unreliable ballots, and counting the ballots of “voters” who had no
recorded birthdates and were not registered in the QVF or on any supplemental sheets. See
Affidavit of Angelic Johnson Appendix 26 at ¶7; Affidavit of Adam di Angeli Appendix 129 at
¶61; see also, Affidavit of John McGrath, supra; Affidavit of Kristina Karamo, supra; Affidavit
of Robert Cushman, supra; Affidavit of Jennifer Seidl, supra; Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi,
supra; Affidavit of Kristy Klamer, supra.
XIV. Flooding the Election with Absentee Ballots was Improper.
160. Michigan does not permit “mail-in” ballots per se, and for good reason: mail-in
ballots facilitate fraud and dishonest elections. See, e.g., Veasey v Abbott, 830 F3d 216, 256, 263
(CA5, 2016) (observing that “mail-in ballot fraud is a significant threat—unlike in-person voter
fraud,” and comparing “in-person voting—a form of voting with little proven incidence of fraud”
with “mail-in voting, which the record shows is far more vulnerable to fraud”).
32
161. Yet Respondent Benson’s absentee ballot scheme, as explained in this Petition,
achieved the same purpose as mail-in ballots—contrary to Michigan law. In the most charitable
light, this was profoundly naïve and cut against the plain language and clear intent of the Michigan
Legislature to limit fraud. More cynically, this was an intentional effort to favor her preferred
candidates.
162. Upon information and belief, she put this scheme in place because it is generally
understood that Republican voters were more likely to vote in-person. This trend has been true
for decades and proved true with this Election too. See Expert Report of John McLaughlin,
Appendix 301-303.
163. To counter this (i.e., the fact that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to
vote in-person), Respondent Benson implemented a scheme to permit mail-in voting, leading to
this dispute and the absentee ballot scheme that unfairly favored Democrats over Republicans.
164. In her letter accompanying her absentee ballot scheme, Respondent Benson
misstated, “You have the right to vote by mail in every election.” Playing on the fears created by
the current pandemic, Respondent Benson encouraged voting “by email,” stating, “During the
outbreak of COVID-19, it also enables you to stay home and stay safe while still making your
voice heard in our elections.” Affidavit of Christine Muise, Appendix 46 at ¶2, Ex A.
165. Prior to election day, the Democratic Party’s propaganda was to push voters to vote
by mail and to vote early. Democratic candidates used the fear of the current pandemic to promote
this agenda—an agenda that would benefit Democratic Party candidates. For example, on
September 14, 2020, the Democratic National Committee announced the following:
Today Biden for President and the Democratic National Committee are announcing
new features on IWillVote.com—the DNC’s voter participation website—that will
help voters easily request and return their ballot by mail, as well as learn important
information about the voting process in their state as they make their plan to vote.
33
Previously, an individual could use the site to check or update their registration and
find voting locations. Now the new user experience will also guide a voter through
their best voting-by-mail option . . . .
(available at https://democrats.org/news/biden-for-president-dnc-announce-new-vote-by-mail-
features-on-iwillvote-com/ (last visited Nov. 17, 2020)).
According to the Associated Press:
“We have to make it easier for everybody to be able to vote, particularly if we are
still basically in the kind of lockdown circumstances we are in now,” Biden told
about 650 donors. “But that takes a lot of money, and it’s going to require us to
provide money for states and insist they provide mail-in ballots.”
(available at https://apnews.com/article/6cf3ca7d5a174f2f381636cb4706f505 (last visited Nov.
17, 2020)).
166. Similar statements were repeatedly publicly on the Secretary of State’s website:
Voters are encouraged to vote at home with an absentee ballot and to return
their ballot as early as possible by drop box, in person at their city or township
clerk’s office, or well in advance of the election by mail.
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_101996---,00.html (emphasis added).
167. The Michigan Legislature set forth detailed requirements for absentee ballots, and
these requirements are necessary to prevent voter fraud because it is far easier to commit fraud via
an absentee ballot than when voting in person. See, e.g., Griffin v Roupas, 385 F3d 1128, 1130-
31 (CA7, 2004) (“Voting fraud is a serious problem in U.S. elections generally . . . and it is
facilitated by absentee voting”). Michigan law plainly limits the ways you may get an absentee
ballot:
(1) Subject to section 761(3), at any time during the 75 days before a primary or
special primary, but not later than 8 p.m. on the day of a primary or special primary,
an elector may apply for an absent voter ballot. The elector shall apply in person
or by mail with the clerk of the township or city in which the elector is registered.
The clerk of a city or township shall not send by first-class mail an absent voter
ballot to an elector after 5 p.m. on the Friday immediately before the election.
Except as otherwise provided in section 761(2), the clerk of a city or township shall
34
not issue an absent voter ballot to a registered elector in that city or township after
4 p.m. on the day before the election. An application received before a primary or
special primary may be for either that primary only, or for that primary and the
election that follows. An individual may submit a voter registration application and
an absent voter ballot application at the same time if applying in person with the
clerk or deputy clerk of the city or township in which the individual resides.
Immediately after his or her voter registration application and absent voter ballot
application are approved by the clerk or deputy clerk, the individual may, subject
to the identification requirement in section 761(6), complete an absent voter ballot
at the clerk’s office.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (1) and subject to section 761(3), at
any time during the 75 days before an election, but not later than 8 p.m. on the day
of an election, an elector may apply for an absent voter ballot. The elector shall
apply in person or by mail with the clerk of the township, city, or village in which
the voter is registered. The clerk of a city or township shall not send by first-class
mail an absent voter ballot to an elector after 5 p.m. on the Friday immediately
before the election. Except as otherwise provided in section 761(2), the clerk of a
city or township shall not issue an absent voter ballot to a registered elector in that
city or township after 4 p.m. on the day before the election. An individual may
submit a voter registration application and an absent voter ballot application at the
same time if applying in person with the clerk or deputy clerk of the city or township
in which the individual resides. Immediately after his or her voter registration
application and absent voter ballot application are approved by the clerk, the
individual may, subject to the identification requirement in section 761(6),
complete an absent voter ballot at the clerk’s office.
(3) An application for an absent voter ballot under this section may be made in any
of the following ways:
(a) By a written request signed by the voter.
(b) On an absent voter ballot application form provided for that purpose by
the clerk of the city or township.
(c) On a federal postcard application.
(4) An applicant for an absent voter ballot shall sign the application. Subject to
section 761(2), a clerk or assistant clerk shall not deliver an absent voter ballot to
an applicant who does not sign the application. A person shall not be in possession
of a signed absent voter ballot application except for the applicant; a member of the
applicant’s immediate family; a person residing in the applicant’s household; a
person whose job normally includes the handling of mail, but only during the course
of his or her employment; a registered elector requested by the applicant to return
the application; or a clerk, assistant of the clerk, or other authorized election
official. A registered elector who is requested by the applicant to return his or her
absent voter ballot application shall sign the certificate on the absent voter ballot
application.
35
(5) The clerk of a city or township shall have absent voter ballot application forms
available in the clerk’s office at all times and shall furnish an absent voter ballot
application form to anyone upon a verbal or written request.
MCL 168.759 (emphasis added).
168. The Secretary of State sent unsolicited absentee ballot applications to every
household in Michigan with a registered voter, no matter if the voter was still alive or lived at that
address.
169. The Secretary of State also sent absentee ballot requests to non-residents who were
temporarily living in Michigan, such as out-of-state students who are unregistered to vote in
Michigan.
170. In many instances, the Secretary of State’s absentee ballot scheme led to the
Secretary of State sending ballot requests to individuals who did not request them. See Affidavit
of Christine Muise, Appendix 46 at ¶3. Affidavit of Rena M. Lindevaldesen, Appendix 167 at
¶¶1,3 and 168 ¶5.
XV. Expert Analysis of these statutory violations revels widespread inaccuracies

and loss of election integrity.
171. Petitioners retained experts who analyzed the State’s database for the Election and
related data sets, including its own call center results. See generally, Expert Report of Matthew
Braynard, Appendix 278-288.
172. Petitioners then retained an expert statistician to extrapolate the datasets statewide.
See generally, Expert Report of Dr. Quanying “Jennie” Zhang, Appendix 289-299.
a. Unlawful unsolicited ballots cast in General Election
173. Braynard opined to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that out of the
3,507,410 individuals who the State’s database identifies as applying for and the State sending an
36
absentee ballot, that in his sample of this universe, 12.23% of those absentee voters did not request
an absentee ballot to the clerk’s office. See Expert Report of Matthew Braynard, Appendix 282 at
¶1.
174. These data extrapolate with 99% confidence interval that between 326,460 and
531,467 of the absentee ballots the State issued that were counted were not requested by an eligible
State voter (unsolicited). Expert Report of Dr. Quanying “Jennie” Zhang, Appendix 293 at ¶1.
b. Unsolicited ballots not cast in General Election
175. Out of the 139,190 individuals who the State’s database identifies as having not
requested (unsolicited) and not returned an absentee ballot, 24.14% of these absentee voters in the
State did not request an absentee ballot. See Expert Report of Matthew Braynard, Appendix 282
at ¶2.
38,409 of the absentee ballots the State issued were not requested by an eligible State voter
(unsolicited). Expert Report of Dr. Quanying “Jennie” Zhang, Appendix 293 at ¶2.
177. Using the most conservative boundary, taken together, these data suggest
Respondents violated Michigan Lection Law by sending unsolicited ballots to at least 355,392
people. Id. See also, Affidavit of Sandra Sue Workman, Appendix 197 at ¶28.
c. Absentee ballots were also cast but not properly counted

(improperly destroyed or spoiled)
178. Out of the 139,190 individuals who the State’s database identifies as having not
returned an absentee ballot, 22.95% of those absentee voters did in fact mail back an absentee
ballot to the clerk’s office. See Expert Report of Matthew Braynard, Appendix 282 at ¶3.
179. This suggests many ballots were destroyed or not counted.
37
39,048 of absentee ballots that voters returned but were not counted in the State’s official records.
Expert Report of Dr. Quanying “Jennie” Zhang, Appendix 294 at ¶3.
181. Out of the 51,302 individuals that had changed their address before the election
who the State’s database shows as having voted, 1.38% of those individuals denied casting a ballot.
Id. at ¶4.
182. This suggests that bad actors exploited Respondents’ unlawful practice of sending
unsolicited ballots and improperly harvested ballots on a widespread scale.
183. Indeed, by not following the anti-fraud measures mandated by the Michigan
Legislature, the Secretary of State’s absentee ballot scheme invited the improper use of absentee
ballots and promoted such unlawful practices as ballot harvesting. See Affidavit of Rhonda
Weber, Appendix 43 at ¶7.
184. Using the State’s databases, the databases of the several states, and the NCOA
database, at least 13,248 absentee or early voters were not residents of Michigan when they voted.
See Expert Report of Matthew Braynard, Appendix 282 at ¶5.
185. Of absentee voters surveyed and when comparing databases of the several states,
at least 317 individuals in Michigan voted in more than one state. See Expert Report of Matthew
Braynard, Appendix 282 at ¶6.
d. Respondents ignored other statutory signature requirements
186. The Secretary of State also sent ballots to people who requested ballots online, but
failed to sign the request. See adverse Affidavit of Jonathan Brater, Head of Elections Appendix
317 at ¶10.
38
187. As of October 7, 2020, Brater admits sending at least 74,000 absentee ballots
without a signed request as mandated by the Michigan Legislature. Id.
188. By the Election, we must infer that the actual number of illegal ballots sent was
much higher.
189. According to state records, another 35,109 absentee votes counted by Respondent
Benson listed no address. See Braynard Report, supra.
190. As a result of the absentee ballot scheme, the Secretary of State improperly flooded
the election process with absentee ballots, many of which were fraudulent.
191. The Secretary of State’s absentee ballot scheme violated the checks and balances
put in place by the Michigan Legislature to ensure the integrity and purity of the absentee ballot
process and thus the integrity and purity of the 2020 general election. See generally, Affidavits of
Lucille Ann Huizinga, Appendix 185 at ¶31; Laurie Ann Knott, Appendix 180 at ¶¶34-35;
Marilyn Jean Nowak Appendix 189 at ¶17; Marlene K. Hager, Appendix 192 at ¶¶19-23; and
Sandra Sue Workman Appendix 198 at ¶33.
192. Without limitation, according to state records, 3,373 votes counted in Michigan
were ostensibly from voters 100 years old or older. See Braynard, supra.
193. According to census data, however, there are only about 1,747 centenarians in
Michigan,5 and of those, we cannot assume a 100% voting rate. See McLaughlin, supra.
5
Based on the US Census, 0.0175 percent of Michigan's population is 100 years or older (1,729
centenarians of the total of 9,883,640 people in Michigan in 2010). Census officials estimated
Michigan’s population at 9,986,857 as of July 2019, which puts the total centenarians at 1,747 or
fewer. Source:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2012/dec/c2010sr-03.pdf
39
194. According to state records, at least 259 absentee ballots counted listed their
official address as “email” or “accessible by email,” which are unlawful per se and suggests
improper ballot harvesting. See Braynard, supra.
195. According to state records, at least 109 people voted absentee from the Center for
Forensic Psychiatry at 8303 PLATT RD, SALINE, MI 48176 (not necessarily ineligible felons,
but the State does house the criminally insane at this location), which implies improper ballot
harvesting.
196. According to state records, at least 63 people voted absentee at PO BOX 48531,
OAK PARK, MI 48237, which is registered to a professional guardian and implies improper ballot
harvesting.
197. When compared against the national social security and deceased databases, at least
9 absentee voters in Michigan are confirmed dead as of Election Day, which invalidates those
unlawful votes. See Braynard, supra.
198. Taken together, these irregularities far exceed common sense requirements for
ensuring accuracy and integrity.
e. Respondents did not fix other recent errors or serious

irregularities either
199. These are the same types of serious concerns raised by the Michigan Auditor
General in December 2019, Appendix 205-244.
200. The Auditor General specifically found several violations of MCL 168.492:
i. 2,212 Electors voted more than once;
40
ii. 230 voters were over 122 years old;6 Id. at 217.
iii. Unauthorized users had access to QVF; Id. at 219; and
iv. Clerk and Elected Officials had not completed required training. Id. at
225.
201. The Auditor General found election officials had not completed required training
to obtain or retain accreditation in 14% of counties, 14% of cities, and 23% of townships. Id.
202. The Auditor General found 32 counties, 83 cities, and 426 townships where the
clerk had not completed initial accreditation training or, if already accredited, all continuing
education training as required by law. Id.
203. The Auditor General found 12 counties, 38 cities, and 290 townships where the
clerk had not completed the initial accreditation or continuing education training requirements and
no other local election official had achieved full accreditation. Id.
204. Not only were the Auditor General’s red flags ignored by Respondent Benson, but
she arguably made them worse through her absentee ballot scheme.
205. This not only suggests malfeasance, but the scheme precipitated and revealed
manifest fraud and exploitation at a level Michigan has never before encountered in its elections.
206. The abuses permitted by the Secretary of State’s ballot scheme were on display at
the TCF Center, and elsewhere throughout the State.
207. Because this absentee ballot scheme applied statewide, it undermined the integrity
and purity of the general election statewide, and it dilutes the lawful votes of millions of Michigan
voters.
6
The oldest living person confirmed by the Guinness Book of World Records is 117 years old and
she lives in Japan, not Michigan.
41
XVI. Flooding the Election with Private Money also Violates Federal Law and
Raises the Appearance of Impropriety.
208. Inappropriate secrecy and lack of transparency began months before Election Day
with an unprecedented and orchestrated infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars into local
governments nationwide.
209. More than $9.8 million in private money was poured into Michigan to create an
unfair, two-tier election system in Michigan. See Carlson Report, supra.
210. This Election will be remembered for the evisceration of state statutes designed to
treat voters equally, thereby causing disparate treatment of voters and thus violating the
constitutional rights of millions of Michiganders and Americans citizens.
211. To date, Petitioners and related experts and investigations have uncovered more
than $400 million funneled through a collection of non-profits directly to local government coffers
nationwide dictating to these local governments how they should manage the election, often
contrary to state law. See Carlson Report, supra.
212. These funds were mainly used to: 1) pay “ballot harvesters” bounties, 2) fund
mobile ballot pick up units, 3) deputize and pay political activists to manage ballots; 4) pay poll
workers and election judges (a/k/a inspectors or adjudicators); 5) establish drop-boxes and satellite
offices; 6) pay local election officials and agents “hazard pay” to recruit cities recognized as
Democratic Party strongholds to recruit other cities to apply for grants from non-profits; 7)
consolidate AVCBs and counting centers to facilitate the movement of hundreds of thousands of
questionable ballots in secrecy without legally required bi-partisan observation; 8) implement a
two-tier ballot “curing” plan that unlawfully counted ballots in Democrat Party strongholds and
spoiled similarly situated ballots in Republican Party areas; and 9) subsidized and designed a
scheme to remove the poll watchers from one political party so that the critical responsibility of
42
determining the accuracy of the ballot and the integrity of the count could be done without
oversight.
213. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) controls how money is spent under
federal law. See 42 USC 15301, et seq; see also, MCL 168.18. In turn, Congress used HAVA to
create the non-regulatory Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which was delegated the
responsibility of providing information, training standards, and funding management to states. The
mechanism for administrating HAVA is legislatively adopted state HAVA Plans.
214. Michigan’s HAVA Plan is undisputed. See Certified Michigan HAVA State Plan
of 2003, Terri Lynn Land Secretary, FR Vol. 69. No. 57 March 24 2004.
215. These private funds exceeded the federal government’s March 2020 appropriation
under HAVA and CARES Acts to help local governments manage the general election during the
pandemic.
216. As these unmonitored funds flowed through the pipeline directly to hand-picked
cities, the outlines of two-tiered treatment of the American voter began to take place. Local
governments in Democrat Party strongholds were flush with cash to launch public-private
coordinated voter registration drives allowing private access directly to government voter
registration files, access to early voting opportunities, the provision of incentives such as food,
entertainment, and gifts for early voters, and the off-site collection of ballots. Outside the urban
core and immediate suburbs, unbiased election officials were unable to start such efforts for lack
of funding.
217. Difficult to trace private firms funded this scheme through private grants, which
dictated methods and procedures to local election officials and where the grantors retained the
right to “claw-back” all funds if election officials failed to reach privately set benchmarks—thus
43
entangling the private-public partnership in ways that demand transparency—yet none has been
given.
218. The state officials implicated, and the private interests involved, have refused
repeated demands for the release of communications outlining the rationale and plan behind
spending more than $400 million provided directly to various election officials before the 2020
general election.
219. These funds greased the skids of Democrat-heavy areas violating mandates of the
Michigan Legislature, the Michigan HAVA Plan, the dictates of Congress under HAVA, and equal
protection and Separation of Powers demanded under the United States Constitution.
220. In Michigan specifically, CTCL had awarded eleven grants as of the time of this
survey. CTCL funded cities were:
i. Detroit ($3,512,000);
ii. Lansing ($443,742);
iii. East Lansing ($43,850);
iv. Flint ($475,625);
v. Ann Arbor ($417,000);
vi. Muskegon ($433,580);
vii. Pontiac ($405,564);
viii. Romulus ($16,645);
ix. Kalamazoo ($218,869); and
x. Saginaw ($402,878).
See Expert Report of James Carlson, Appendix 255 (last updated November 25, 2020).
44
221. In the 2016 election, then candidate Donald Trump only won Saginaw; then
candidate Hillary Clinton won the remaining cities.
222. In 2020, CTCL funneled $9,451,235 (95.7%) to the ten jurisdictions where
candidate Clinton won and only $402,878 (4.3%) to where candidate Trump won. Id.
223. On its face, this raises serious equal protection concerns under Bush v Gore, which
requires city, county, and state officials to faithfully—and even-handedly—administer Michigan
Election Law fairly between cities, counties, and across the state.
XVII. Private Money Improperly Flooded into Democratic Party strongholds
224. Only the States themselves or certain federal agencies may spend money on federal
elections under HAVA.
225. Counties and cities cannot spend money on federal elections without going through
the proper state and federal channels under HAVA transparency rules.
226. CTCL’s private federal elections grants to the City of Detroit for $3,512,000 violate
federal law—and thus in turn, offend the rights of voters under the Michigan Constitution.
227. CTCL’s private federal elections grants to the City of Lansing for $443,742 violate
228. CTCL’s private federal elections grants to the City of Flint for $475,625 violate
229. CTCL’s private federal election grants to the Michigan cities tortiously interfere
with Petitioners’ legal rights under federal law to legally-authorized, uniform, and fair federal
elections. See The League of Women Voters v Blackwell, 340 F Supp. 2d 823 (ND Ohio 2004).
230. A government’s election policy favoring certain demographic groups injures the
disfavored demographic groups. “Parity of reasoning suggests that a government can violate the
45
Elections Clause if it skews the outcome of an election by encouraging and facilitating voting by
favored demographic groups.” Young v Red Clay Consol Sch Dist, 122 A3d 784, 858 (Del Ch
2015).
231. Upon information and belief, the evidence will show that this flood of private
money to Democratic-controlled areas improperly skewed the Election results for Joe Biden and
unfairly prejudiced Petitioners.
232. Petitioners do not want progressive Democrat candidates to win in the general
election, and the Petitioners are injured by CTCL’s private federal election grants because they are
targeted to cities with progressive voter patterns—causing more progressive Democrat votes and
a greater chance that progressive Democrat candidates will win. See, id.
XVIII. Irreparable Harm to Petitioners and All Legal Voters
233. Petitioners Johnson and Dr. Traver voted for the Republican Party candidates
during the 2020 general election. These Petitioners voted for Donald J. Trump for President and
John James for the United States Senate. But for the unlawful acts set forth in this Petition,
President Trump will win Michigan’s 16 electoral votes and John James would be elected to the
United States Senate, thereby promoting Petitioners’ political interests.
234. The unlawful acts set forth in this Petition have caused, and will continue to cause,
Petitioners irreparable harm.
235. Based on the statutory violations and other misconduct, and evidence of widespread
mistake, irregularities, and fraud, it is necessary to order appropriate relief, including, but not
limited to, enjoining the statewide certification of the election results pending a full and
independent investigation, this Court taking immediate custody and control of the ballots, poll
books, and other indicia of the voting, ordering a recount of the election results, voiding the
46
election, and ordering a new election as permitted by law for down ballot candidates, or at a
minimum, voiding the illicit absentee ballots to remedy the unfairness, irregularities, and fraud.
236. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable
harm unless the injunctive relief requested here is granted.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process)
237. Petitioners incorporate by reference all stated paragraphs.
238. Because of the acts, policies, practices, procedures, and customs, created, adopted,
and enforced under color of state law, Respondents have deprived Petitioners of the right to due
process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Michigan Constitution.
239. In Michigan, Respondents have a duty to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the
election.
240. In Michigan, Respondents owe citizens an audit of election results that is
meaningful and fair and to safeguard against election abuses.
241. Respondents have failed to satisfy these duties. Therefore, Petitioners are entitled
to mandamus to prevent further constitutional harm.
242. The right of qualified citizens to vote in a state election involving federal candidates
is recognized as a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment. Harper v Va State Bd of
Elections, 383 US 663, 665 (1966); see also Reynolds, 377 US at 554 ([“The Fourteenth
Amendment protects the] the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal
elections.”).
47
243. The fundamental right to vote protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is cherished
in our nation because it “is preservative of other basic civil and political rights.” Reynolds, 377 at
562.
244. Voters have a right to cast a ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation
and fraud, and confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of
our constitutional republic.
245. Included within the right to vote, secured by the United States and Michigan
Constitutions, is the right of qualified voters within a State to cast their ballots and have them
counted if they are validly cast. The right to have the vote counted means counted at full value
without dilution or discount.
246. Every voter in a federal election, whether he votes for a candidate with little chance
of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the Constitution to have his
vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.
247. Invalid or fraudulent votes debase and dilute the weight of each validly cast vote.
248. The right to an accurate count is a right possessed by each voting elector, and when
the importance of his vote is negated, even in part, he has been injured in the free exercise of a
right or privilege secured to him by the laws and Constitutions of the United States and Michigan.
249. Practices that promote the casting of illegal or unreliable ballots or fail to contain
basic minimum guarantees against such conduct—such as the Secretary of State’s absentee ballot
scheme—can and did violate the right to due process by leading to the dilution of validly cast
ballots. See Reynolds, 377 US at 555 (“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or
dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free
exercise of the franchise.”).
48
250. The Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Michigan
Constitution protect the right to vote from conduct by state officials which undermines the
fundamental fairness of the electoral process.
251. Separate from the Equal Protection Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause protects the fundamental right to vote against the disenfranchisement of a state
electorate. The Due Process Clause of the Michigan Constitution protects the same.
252. When an election process reaches the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,
as in this case, there is a due process violation.
253. As a result, the right to vote, the right to have one’s vote counted, and the right to
have one’s vote given equal weight are basic and fundamental constitutional rights incorporated
in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Michigan
Constitution, and 42 USC § 1983.
254. Respondents have a duty to guard against the deprivation of the right to vote
through the dilution of validly cast ballots caused by ballot fraud or election tampering. The
Secretary of State and the Board failed in their duties.
255. The actions of election officials at the TCF Center and the Secretary of State’s
absentee ballot scheme have caused the debasement and dilution of the weight of Petitioners’ votes
in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of
the Michigan Constitution, and 42 USC § 1983.
256. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents’ violation of due process,
Petitioners have suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of their fundamental constitutional
rights, disparate treatment, and dilution of their lawful votes, entitling them to declaratory and
injunctive relief.
49
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Equal Protection)
258. Because of the acts, policies, practices, procedures, and customs, created, adopted,
and enforced under color of state law, Respondents have deprived Petitioners of the equal
protection of the law guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, the Michigan Constitution’s counterpart, and 42 USC § 1983.
259. The actions of election officials at the TCF Center and the Secretary of State’s
absentee ballot scheme have caused the debasement and dilution of the weight of Petitioners’ votes
in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Michigan
Constitution.
election.
263. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents’ violation of the equal protection
guarantee of the United States and Michigan Constitutions, Petitioners have suffered irreparable
harm, including the loss of their fundamental constitutional rights, disparate treatment, and dilution
of their lawful votes, entitling them to declaratory and injunctive relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Article II, section 1, clause 2)
50
265. Through the absentee ballot scheme created, adopted, and enforced by the Secretary
of State under color of state law and without legislative authorization, Respondent Benson violated
Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
election.
269. As a direct and proximate result of Respondent Benson’s violation of the Michigan
and United States Constitutions, Petitioners have suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of
their fundamental constitutional rights, disparate treatment, and dilution of their lawful votes,
entitling them to declaratory and injunctive relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Mandamus and Quo Warranto)
270. Because of the exigencies caused by the statewide certification of this unlawful
scheme by the Board of Canvassers on November 23, 2020, Petitioners have no recourse to protect
their civil liberties except through extraordinary relief from this Court.
271. The last popular election unstained by Respondents’ scheme installed the current
Michigan Legislature. By fundamental design, this Legislature is tasked with ensuring Petitioners’
constitutional rights are upheld and safeguarded. Moreover, under the United States Constitution,
only the legislatures of the several states may select its electors when the statutes proscribed for a
popular vote have been corrupted by executive branch officials.
51
272. The Michigan Legislature has delegated certain tasks to Respondents. However,
Respondents failed to follow the clear and unambiguous language of the election law statutes, as
set forth in this Petition.
273. This abuse of authority cuts at the root of the Separation of Powers and cannot be
countenanced by this Court. Moreover, the Michigan Legislature has provided this Court with
unique authority to hear and resolve election disputes on an expediated basis.
274. Moreover, because the Board of Canvassers certified the Election without
conducting an audit and investigating the multiple allegations of election fraud and irregularities,
Petitioners have been aggrieved by this determination, requiring this Court to issue the requested
relief.
275. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents’ violations of the United States
Constitution, the Michigan Constitution, and Michigan Election Law, Petitioners have been
aggrieved and have suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of their fundamental
constitutional rights, disparate treatment, and dilution of their lawful votes, entitling them to
declaratory and injunctive relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners ask this Court to narrowly tailor its relief to:
A) ensure the Separation of Powers and protect the accuracy and integrity of the
November 2020 General Election by giving the Michigan Legislature an opportunity to finish its
constitutionally-mandated work to pick Michigan’s electors;
B) take custody and control of all ballots, ballot boxes, poll books, and other indicia
of the Election from Respondents or their designee to prevent further irregularities and to ensure
the Michigan Legislature and this Court have a chance to perform a constitutionally sound audit
of lawful votes;
52
C) segregate any ballots counted or certified inconsistent with Michigan Election Law;
D) declare that Respondent Benson violated Petitioners’ fundamental constitutional
rights as explained in this Petition;
E) segregate any ballots attributable to the Secretary of State’s absentee ballot scheme
and declare the Secretary of State’s absentee ballot scheme unlawful;
F) appoint a special master or committee from both chambers of the Michigan
Legislature to investigate all claims of mistake, irregularity, and fraud at the TCF Center and to
verify and certify the legality of all absentee ballots ordered through the Secretary of State’s
absentee ballot scheme. The special master may recommend, including a recommendation with
findings, that illegal votes can be separated from legal votes to determine a proper tabulation, or
that the fraud is of such a character that the correct vote cannot be determined;
G) alternatively, to enjoin Respondents or Governor Whitmer from finally certifying
the election results and declaring winners of the 2020 general election to the United States
Department of State or United States Congress until after a special master can be appointed to
review and certify the legality of all absentee ballots ordered through the Secretary of State’s
absentee ballot scheme;
H) alternatively, to enjoin Respondents from finally certifying the election results and
declaring winners of the 2020 general election until a special master can be appointed to
independently review the election procedures employed at the TCF Center and throughout the
State;
I) alternatively, to enjoin Respondents from finally certifying the election results and
declaring winners of the 2020 general election until a special master can be appointed to review
and certify the legality of all absentee ballots submitted in Wayne County and throughout the State;
53
J) to grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: November 26, 2020
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY—AMISTAD PROJECT
AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
/s/ Ian A. Northon _______ ___

Ian A. Northon, Esq. (P65082)
Gregory G. Timmer (P39396)
RHOADES MCKEE, PC
55 Campau Avenue
Suite 300
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Tel.: (616) 233-5125
Fax: (616) 233-5269
ian@rhoadesmckee.com
ggtimmer@rhoadesmckee.com
/s/ Robert J. Muise

Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
PO Box 131098
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113
Tel: (734) 635-3756
Fax: (801) 760-3901
rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
/s/ Erin E. Mersino

Erin Elizabeth Mersino, Esq. (P70886)
GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER
5600 W. Mt. Hope Highway
Lansing, Michigan 48917
(517) 322-3207
erin@greatlakesjc.org
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
54

Supreme Court Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Petition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this petition?

What is the purpose of this petition?

What rights do the petitioners claim have been violated?

What rights do the petitioners claim have been violated?

RECEIVED by MSC 11/26/2020 2:44:13 AM

ANGELIC JOHNSON, and

SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THOMAS MORE SOCIETY—

Ian A. Northon, Esq. (P65082) Erin Elizabeth Mersino, Esq. (P70886)

Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)

reason, as shown further in this Petition.

Proposal 3, the Michigan Constitution now provides in relevant part:

App July 20, 2020).

1963, art 1, § 17; see also, MCL 168.10.

signature verification, thereby allowing for fraud in obtaining an absentee ballot.

Michigan and in some cases to citizens of other states.

actions—and for good reason.

at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan proves.

for appointing Presidential electors defies this constitutional mandate.

Beach Cnty Canvassing Bd, 531 US 70; 121 S Ct 471 (2000).

province of a state executive official to re-write the state’s election code.”).

procedures is a legislative task,’ including during a pandemic.”) (internal citation omitted).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

including 168.109 and 168.479.

21. The Michigan Constitution, Article 6, § 4 states that:

Const 1963, art 6, § 4 (emphasis added).

mandamus or other appropriate remedy in the supreme court.” (emphasis added).

24. Petitioners demanded that Respondent Board of State Canvassers (“Board”)

Northon; Appendix 199 at ¶3, Ex A (Petitioners’ Demand Letter to Board).

Board of State Canvassers “by no other action than mandamus.”

for all citizens of Michigan.

over the ballots when there is danger of mishandling).

NECESSITY FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION

convene on December 8, 2020.

she was a poll challenger at the TCF Center.

MCL 168.31(1)(b), 168.509n. Secretary Benson is responsible for “[e]stablish[ing] a curriculum

Mich Const art XI, § 1.

of a properly certified certificate of a determination from a board of country canvassers. Id.

Legislature under MCL 168.846 and the United States Constitution.

38. Respondent Gretchen Whitmer is the Governor of the State of Michigan. As

Petitioner’s Appendix 278-300.

the total popular vote count.

and tabulate all the ballots throughout the City of Detroit.

47. William Hartman is a member of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers. He

Affidavit of William Hartman; Appendix 17-18 at ¶6 (emphasis in original).

19 at ¶12; Affidavit of Monica Palmer, Appendix 24 at ¶20.

irregularities in Detroit, elsewhere in Wayne County, and throughout the State.

I. Respondents’ Failure to Allow Meaningful Observation Offends the State

and integrity of elections.” Const 1963, art 2, § 4(1)(h).

Id. (emphasis added).

Affidavit of Zachary C. Larsen, Appendix 8 at ¶¶37-55; Affidavit of G Kline Preston IV,

Appendix 53 at ¶8; Affidavit of Articia Boomer, Appendix 65 at ¶21; Affidavit of Phillip

O’Halloran, Appendix 74 at ¶¶18-19; Affidavit of Robert Cushman, Appendix 95 at ¶3; Affidavit

Affidavit of Matthew Mikolajczak, Appendix 156; Affidavit of Braden Giacobazzi, Appendix

59. Wayne County is the most populous county in Michigan.

60. Detroit is the largest city in Wayne County.

Center to be processed and counted).

Appendix 159 at ¶¶3-4.

undervotes, or causing the ballots to be discarded due to overvotes.

during the Election and during the counting process thereafter.