Berrien County Prosecutor Michael Sepic is reaching out to the Michigan Legislature to correct the loophole that led to yesterday’s Michigan Supreme Court ruling that vacates activist Edward Pinkney’s conviction four years ago for voter fraud.
After carefully reading the fully detailed 31-page ruling from the Supreme Court, Sepic wants legislators to act quickly to resolve the matter before things get out of hand arguing that ruling essentially, “permits one to forge recall or petition documents without recourse.”
Sepic says that many statutory codes in the state have penalty provisions for violation of prohibitions against certain conduct. By way of example he uses the Mobile Home Park Code and Motor Vehicles Code which have such penalty provisions. Unfortunately, as various legislatures over the years have tinkered and fine-tuned the election code they ended up leaving the penalty section on the cutting room floor, paving the way for what Pinkney did.
Here is Sepic’s full commentary on the issue and his plea for the Michigan Legislature to remedy the situation:
Yesterday, May 1, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled the statute under which Edward Pinkney was convicted in 2014 was not a substantive law section but rather simply a penalty section. Many of Michigan’s statutory codes have sections that prohibit certain conduct, but then at the end of the particular code (the Mobile Home Park Code and Motor Vehicle Code, for instance) there is generally a penalty provision. The Michigan Election Code had been amended by the Legislature many times over the years. The patchwork amendments by the Legislature removed the substantive sections to which the penalty section referred. The penalty section referred to forgery of election documents, however, did not set forth with particularity the details normally found in a substantive statute.
This was an issue decided by several courts in the judicial branch prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The trial judge in the Pinkney case denied motions by defense at the trial court level and ruled it was a substantive law section, as did the Michigan Court of Appeals. And, another panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled it was a substantive section in another case in another county.
The Supreme Court said that rendering a statute as having no meaning, as it did in this case, is not only unusual but “exceedingly rare.”
It should also be noted that the court did not in any way disturb the finding of the jury that Pinkney changed the signature dates on the recall petitions so as to qualify additional needed names to his petitions.
In summary, the hole left in the Election Code by prior amendments, permits one to forge recall or petition documents without recourse. It is my belief that the Legislature did not intend this result (nor do I believe the citizens of Michigan find this result acceptable) and thus, I implore the Legislature to fill this gap by the passage of amendments to the Election Code specifically prohibiting such conduct.
Stay tuned to see if the Legislature is paying attention.
