Claim: MI Court: Michigan Secretary of State’s Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump Claim

[BigFatAtheist]

So this was found in Breitbart, so my expectation is that they probably missed a lot of context. I'm ready to be shown that I'm wrong on that.

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she unilaterally issued rules related to absentee balloting, legitimizing a key claim made by the Trump campaign in its legal challenges to the 2020 election.

Benson issued several unilateral orders during the 2020 election including sending absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. She also issued "guidance" on how to evaluate absentee ballots, a move Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray held violated the state's Administrative Procedures Act.

In the guidance, Benson said "slight similarities" in signatures on absentee ballots should lead a counter to decide "in favor of finding that the voter's signature was valid."

Murray ruled Benson violated the law "because the guidance issued by the Secretary of State on October 6, 2020, with respect to signature matching standards was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)."

"I'm glad the court sees Secretary of State Benson's attempts at lawmaking for what they are — clear violations of her authority," Michigan state Rep. Matt Hall (R) said in a statement.

"If she wants to make changes like these, she needs to work with the Legislature or properly promulgate them through the laws we have on the books — in this case the Administrative Procedures Act," he continued.

[…]

Signature validation rules created without the approval of a legislature was one of the issues the Trump campaign and Republicans claimed was done illegally in the 2020 election.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...llot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/

 

[Mendel]

"Vindicating Trump claim" is a misleading headline, since Trump's general claim is that the election was "stolen" through widespread fraud, and this case decided in the Michigan Court of Claims does nothing to support that claim.
The decision is subject to appeal; I don't know if the state is going to appeal the decision; they might decide not to do it even if they would win the appeal.

I doubt that Benson really said "slight similarities" should prove a signature valid, that looks like an exaggeration:

Article:

Murray of the Court of Claims said Benson's directive was illegal because it didn't go through a formal rule-making process that involves the Legislature.

Benson told clerks last fall that they must presume a signature on an absentee ballot envelope or a ballot application is valid.

Signatures "should be considered questionable" only if they differ "in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file," Benson said at the time.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/legislature-local-elections-christopher-murray-elections-jocelyn-benson-400aa21b8bda69b6101a3545592c291d

Article:

Benson's guidance, issued on October 6, 2020, directed local clerks to treat signatures as valid if there are "any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope signature as compared to the signature on file." "Redeeming qualities" are described as including, but not being limited to, "similar distinctive flourishes" and "more matching features than non-matching features." Allegan County Clerk Robert Genetski and the Republican Party of Michigan filed suit against Benson, alleging that her guidance violated the state's election laws and the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs asked that the court strike down the guidance as unlawful and enjoin its enforcement in future elections.

Murray sided with the plaintiffs, finding that Benson's guidance was in fact a rule "that should have been promulgated in accordance with the APA. And absent compliance with the APA, the 'rule' is invalid." Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a state agency is required to follow formal rulemaking procedures (e.g., when establishing policies that "do not merely interpret or explain the statute of rules from which the agency derives its authority," but rather "establish the substantive standards implementing the program.")

Source: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2021/03/19/michigan-court-of-claims-invalidates-absentee-mail-in-ballot-rule-as-improperly-established/

From this reporting, it seems clear to me that the judge didn't say the rule itself was bad or unconstitutional or fraudulent. The judge merely decided that the way this rule came into being did not follow proper procedure, which means that it can't be used in future elections; but since the Michigan legislature is still Republican, I expect that these standards will have been explicitly set by the next election anyway, so that even if this decision gets overturned on appeal, that wouldn't have any effect.

 

[NoParty]

"Vindicating Trump claim" is a misleading headline, since Trump's general claim is that the election was "stolen" through widespread fraud, and this case decided in the Michigan Court of Claims does nothing to support that claim.
The decision is subject to appeal; I don't know if the state is going to appeal the decision; they might decide not to do it even if they would win the appeal.

I doubt that Benson really said "slight similarities" should prove a signature valid, that looks like an exaggeration:

Article:

Murray of the Court of Claims said Benson's directive was illegal because it didn't go through a formal rule-making process that involves the Legislature.

Benson told clerks last fall that they must presume a signature on an absentee ballot envelope or a ballot application is valid.

Signatures "should be considered questionable" only if they differ "in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file," Benson said at the time.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/legislature-local-elections-christopher-murray-elections-jocelyn-benson-400aa21b8bda69b6101a3545592c291d

Article:

Benson's guidance, issued on October 6, 2020, directed local clerks to treat signatures as valid if there are "any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope signature as compared to the signature on file." "Redeeming qualities" are described as including, but not being limited to, "similar distinctive flourishes" and "more matching features than non-matching features." Allegan County Clerk Robert Genetski and the Republican Party of Michigan filed suit against Benson, alleging that her guidance violated the state's election laws and the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs asked that the court strike down the guidance as unlawful and enjoin its enforcement in future elections.

Murray sided with the plaintiffs, finding that Benson's guidance was in fact a rule "that should have been promulgated in accordance with the APA. And absent compliance with the APA, the 'rule' is invalid." Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a state agency is required to follow formal rulemaking procedures (e.g., when establishing policies that "do not merely interpret or explain the statute of rules from which the agency derives its authority," but rather "establish the substantive standards implementing the program.")

Source: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2021/03/19/michigan-court-of-claims-invalidates-absentee-mail-in-ballot-rule-as-improperly-established/

From this reporting, it seems clear to me that the judge didn't say the rule itself was bad or unconstitutional or fraudulent. The judge merely decided that the way this rule came into being did not follow proper procedure, which means that it can't be used in future elections; but since the Michigan legislature is still Republican, I expect that these standards will have been explicitly set by the next election anyway, so that even if this decision gets overturned on appeal, that wouldn't have any effect.

Yes, if the exact same information was conveyed by a source more objective (and credible)
than Breitbart, the "Vindicating Trump claim" shouldn't appear.

To be fair though, if you're on the Breitbart site, you should know what you're getting...just like if
you read the story on Rawstory.com, you'd expect it to be spun hard in the opposite direction.

And while I agree with you that the actual content in no way validates Trump's outlandish and
dishonest claims, I do think that any judge's ruling that criticizes adjustment to any voting rules,
is a small point for the Trump side, since that was part of his side's complaint.

I'm curious as to whether the 2020 election will lead to any future rule clauses about how much
can and can't be modified if voters are in a pandemic lockdown.

 

[Mendel]

And while I agree with you that the actual content in no way validates Trump's outlandish and dishonest claims, I do think that any judge's ruling that criticizes adjustment to any voting rules, is a small point for the Trump side, since that was part of his side's complaint.

I'm curious as to whether the 2020 election will lead to any future rule clauses about how much can and can't be modified if voters are in a pandemic lockdown.

Well.
You imply a good point there.
The news reporting I quoted is consistent with a legal opinion of "this was ok because this was an emergency, but you've got to do it properly going forward", which would be NO point for the "Trump side" at all. It is consistent with that because the reporting makes it clear that the ruling does not affect the 2020 election. If there had been a preliminary injunction overturning thus rule before the election result was certified, then that would have been a point.

Let's back this up with details. I am attaching the opinion for case No. 20-000216-MM, State of Michigan Court of Claims.

The complaint is

1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal
2. the rule is invalid today
3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election
4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited

Count I alleges that defendant Benson violated various provisions of this state's election law by issuing the challenged guidance regarding signature-matching requirements which allegedly conflicts with this state's election law. [..]

Count II of the amended complaint alleges that defendant Benson's guidance was a "rule" as defined by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) that was issued without compliance with the APA. [..] Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the "rule" is invalid.

Count III alleges [..] defendant Benson's guidance will result in the counting of invalid absent voter ballots which will ultimately result in the dilution of valid votes cast by this state's electorate. [..]

Count IV alleges that plaintiff Genetski had a right to request an audit of his choosing under Const 1963, art 2, § 4(1)(h) as it relates to absent voter ballots. Plaintiffs acknowledge that defendants have announced and/or completed a state-wide audit of the November 2020 general election; however, according to plaintiffs, the audit does not address plaintiffs' concerns because it did not review whether signatures on absent voter ballots were properly evaluated.

[..] Here, plaintiffs—particularly plaintiff Genetski, who is a local clerk subject to the guidance at issue— sought a declaration regarding whether he is and will continue to be subject to guidance that by all accounts remains in effect at this time.

How were these complaints adjudicated?

there is no dispute that Count III, which raises an equal protection claim arising out of the November 2020 general election, is moot and must be dismissed.

The 2020 election is not the subject of this trial.

Plaintiffs' cross-motion will be GRANTED in part with respect to Count II of the amended complaint because the challenged signature-matching standards were issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. As a result of the grant of summary disposition in plaintiffs' favor on Count II, Count I of the amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

The court doesn't decide on whether what Benson did or not was illegal, because it serves no purpose once it is established that the rule is invalid today.

That this presumption is mandatory convinces the Court that it is not merely guidance, but instead is a generally applied standard that implements this state's signature-matching laws.

This seems to say that the rule itself didn't contradict existing laws.

In sum, the standards issued by defendant Benson on October 6, 2020, with respect to signature-matching requirements amounted to a "rule" that should have been promulgated in accordance with the APA. And absent compliance with the APA, the "rule" is invalid. Whether defendant Benson had authority to implement that which she did not need not be decided at this time because it is apparent the APA applied to the type of action taken in this case.

But the proper process wasn't followed, therefore the rule is invalid now.

plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted as it concerns Count IV, and this count will be dismissed with prejudice.

They don't get to audit the signatures.

So, in conclusion:

1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal - not decided, dismissed
2. the rule is invalid today - upheld because APA procedure was not followed
3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election - moot, dismissed
4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited - denied

This ruling does not concern the 2020 election, and can therefore not award any "points" to claims about that election to anyone.

What does the opinion say about the 2020 election?

I. BACKGROUND

The issues raised implicate signature-matching requirements for absent voter ballot applications and absent voter ballot return envelopes contained in this state's election law. [..] The signatures on the applications and the return envelopes are compared against signatures in the qualified voter file or those that appear on the "master registration card" in order to determine whether the signatures match. Signatures on applications or return envelopes that do not "agree sufficiently" with those on file are to be rejected. [..] As of October 6, 2020, MCL 168.761(2)1 was amended by 2020 PA 177 to give notice to voters' whose signatures do not "agree sufficiently" with those on file that their absent voter ballot application has been rejected. [..] There is no dispute that this state's election law does not define what it means for signatures to "agree" or to "agree sufficiently" for purposes of comparing the signature on file with the signature on a received absent voter ballot application or absent voter ballot. On the day PA 177 became effective, defendant Jocelyn Benson issued what defendants refer to as "guidance" for local clerks who are charged with inspecting signatures on absent voter ballot applications and ballots. The document, which was entitled "Absent Voter Ballot Processing: Signature Verification and Voter Notification Standards" largely mirrored guidance defendant Benson had previously issued.

Basically, what this says is that the legislature made laws that require signatures to "agree sufficiently", but did not say what that means.

Since the secretary of state has to implement that law, she had to define what it means. This is necessary because otherwise the different clerks tasked with verifying the signatures can't treat all ballots the same, and that would probably violate equal protection laws. Not making a rule like that would probably have been illegal.

The "Administrative procedures act" is a collection of red tape involving the "office of regulatory reinvention", the "joint committee on administrative rules", public hearings, and the like. Whether it applies to that signature guidance depends on whether that guidance is deemed to be a "rule", and Benson didn't think it was one. I don't know if the APA process could even have been completed between October 6th and election day.

So, this decison did not say this:

• it did not say that the rule itself was bad
• it did not say that Benson broke the law
• it did not say that signatures were compared the wrong way

There was no "right way" to compare signatures because the legislature did not provide one; the Secretary of State need to provide that; but it turns out she did not follow the proper procedure for that.

But the reason for that happening was that the GOP-led legislature did not actually put the requirements for these comparisons in their own law. They screwed up, Benson fixed it, they didn't like it, and now they're blaming Benson for it.

Benson basically said in her defense that the legislature could just make a new law and fix it themselves, and the trial wasn't needed ("Defendants argue that no actual controversy exists because the Legislature could change the applicable law"), but the judge said that since the law hadn't been made yet, he still had to decide on the issue.

So that's what the decision does. It makes a rule invalid that the GOP didn't like. The secretary of State can now put the same rule through the APA process if the GOP doesn't manage to write it into law until the next election. (I looked at PA 302 of 2020 mentioned in a footnote in the decision, it doesn't define "agree sufficiently" either.)

This does not make the GOP look good in any way.

 

[NoParty]

Well.
You imply a good point there.
The news reporting I quoted is consistent with a legal opinion of "this was ok because this was an emergency, but you've got to do it properly going forward", which would be NO point for the "Trump side" at all. It is consistent with that because the reporting makes it clear that the ruling does not affect the 2020 election. If there had been a preliminary injunction overturning thus rule before the election result was certified, then that would have been a point.

Let's back this up with details. I am attaching the opinion for case No. 20-000216-MM, State of Michigan Court of Claims.

The complaint is

1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal
2. the rule is invalid today
3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election
4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited

Count I alleges that defendant Benson violated various provisions of this state's election law by issuing the challenged guidance regarding signature-matching requirements which allegedly conflicts with this state's election law. [..]

Count II of the amended complaint alleges that defendant Benson's guidance was a "rule" as defined by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) that was issued without compliance with the APA. [..] Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the "rule" is invalid.

Count III alleges [..] defendant Benson's guidance will result in the counting of invalid absent voter ballots which will ultimately result in the dilution of valid votes cast by this state's electorate. [..]

Count IV alleges that plaintiff Genetski had a right to request an audit of his choosing under Const 1963, art 2, § 4(1)(h) as it relates to absent voter ballots. Plaintiffs acknowledge that defendants have announced and/or completed a state-wide audit of the November 2020 general election; however, according to plaintiffs, the audit does not address plaintiffs' concerns because it did not review whether signatures on absent voter ballots were properly evaluated.

[..] Here, plaintiffs—particularly plaintiff Genetski, who is a local clerk subject to the guidance at issue— sought a declaration regarding whether he is and will continue to be subject to guidance that by all accounts remains in effect at this time.

How were these complaints adjudicated?

there is no dispute that Count III, which raises an equal protection claim arising out of the November 2020 general election, is moot and must be dismissed.

The 2020 election is not the subject of this trial.

Plaintiffs' cross-motion will be GRANTED in part with respect to Count II of the amended complaint because the challenged signature-matching standards were issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. As a result of the grant of summary disposition in plaintiffs' favor on Count II, Count I of the amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

The court doesn't decide on whether what Benson did or not was illegal, because it serves no purpose once it is established that the rule is invalid today.

That this presumption is mandatory convinces the Court that it is not merely guidance, but instead is a generally applied standard that implements this state's signature-matching laws.

This seems to say that the rule itself didn't contradict existing laws.

In sum, the standards issued by defendant Benson on October 6, 2020, with respect to signature-matching requirements amounted to a "rule" that should have been promulgated in accordance with the APA. And absent compliance with the APA, the "rule" is invalid. Whether defendant Benson had authority to implement that which she did not need not be decided at this time because it is apparent the APA applied to the type of action taken in this case.

But the proper process wasn't followed, therefore the rule is invalid now.

plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted as it concerns Count IV, and this count will be dismissed with prejudice.

They don't get to audit the signatures.

So, in conclusion:

1. what the Secretary of State did was illegal - not decided, dismissed
2. the rule is invalid today - upheld because APA procedure was not followed
3. the rule allows invalid votes and "dilutes" the election - moot, dismissed
4. the signatures on absentee ballots should be "properly" audited - denied

This ruling does not concern the 2020 election, and can therefore not award any "points" to claims about that election to anyone.

What does the opinion say about the 2020 election?

I. BACKGROUND

The issues raised implicate signature-matching requirements for absent voter ballot applications and absent voter ballot return envelopes contained in this state's election law. [..] The signatures on the applications and the return envelopes are compared against signatures in the qualified voter file or those that appear on the "master registration card" in order to determine whether the signatures match. Signatures on applications or return envelopes that do not "agree sufficiently" with those on file are to be rejected. [..] As of October 6, 2020, MCL 168.761(2)1 was amended by 2020 PA 177 to give notice to voters' whose signatures do not "agree sufficiently" with those on file that their absent voter ballot application has been rejected. [..] There is no dispute that this state's election law does not define what it means for signatures to "agree" or to "agree sufficiently" for purposes of comparing the signature on file with the signature on a received absent voter ballot application or absent voter ballot. On the day PA 177 became effective, defendant Jocelyn Benson issued what defendants refer to as "guidance" for local clerks who are charged with inspecting signatures on absent voter ballot applications and ballots. The document, which was entitled "Absent Voter Ballot Processing: Signature Verification and Voter Notification Standards" largely mirrored guidance defendant Benson had previously issued.

Basically, what this says is that the legislature made laws that require signatures to "agree sufficiently", but did not say what that means.

Since the secretary of state has to implement that law, she had to define what it means. This is necessary because otherwise the different clerks tasked with verifying the signatures can't treat all ballots the same, and that would probably violate equal protection laws. Not making a rule like that would probably have been illegal.

The "Administrative procedures act" is a collection of red tape involving the "office of regulatory reinvention", the "joint committee on administrative rules", public hearings, and the like. Whether it applies to that signature guidance depends on whether that guidance is deemed to be a "rule", and Benson didn't think it was one. I don't know if the APA process could even have been completed between October 6th and election day.

So, this decison did not say this:

• it did not say that the rule itself was bad
• it did not say that Benson broke the law
• it did not say that signatures were compared the wrong way

There was no "right way" to compare signatures because the legislature did not provide one; the Secretary of State need to provide that; but it turns out she did not follow the proper procedure for that.

But the reason for that happening was that the GOP-led legislature did not actually put the requirements for these comparisons in their own law. They screwed up, Benson fixed it, they didn't like it, and now they're blaming Benson for it.

Benson basically said in her defense that the legislature could just make a new law and fix it themselves, and the trial wasn't needed ("Defendants argue that no actual controversy exists because the Legislature could change the applicable law"), but the judge said that since the law hadn't been made yet, he still had to decide on the issue.

So that's what the decision does. It makes a rule invalid that the GOP didn't like. The secretary of State can now put the same rule through the APA process if the GOP doesn't manage to write it into law until the next election. (I looked at PA 302 of 2020 mentioned in a footnote in the decision, it doesn't define "agree sufficiently" either.)

This does not make the GOP look good in any way.

I get the gist of your point, but I don't fully understand it.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) basically told (10/6/20) clerks to generally assume signatures were valid,
as the 2020 election was just a month away.

Republicans filed suit, saying Benson's directive was not compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act.

On 3/9/21 Judge Murray basically sided with the Republicans and invalidated Benson's new "guidance."


How does that not help (a little) the Republican argument that rule changes were being made improperly?



https://news.ballotpedia.org/2021/0...ail-in-ballot-rule-as-improperly-established/

 

[Mendel]

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) basically told (10/6/20) clerks to generally assume signatures were valid, as the 2020 election was just a month away.

That's an oversimplification. I haven't found the guidance itself, but this is what the judge said about it (and he also said that this guidance wasn't established on 10/6, it was mostly a copy of existing guidance):

The stated purpose of the at-issue document was to "provide[ ] standards" for reviewing signatures, verifying signatures, and curing missing or mismatched signatures. Under a heading entitled "Procedures for Signature Verification," the document stated that signature review "begins with the presumption that" the signature on an absent voter ballot application or envelope is valid. Further, the form instructs clerks to, if there are "any redeeming qualities in the [absent voter] application or return envelope signature as compared to the signature on file, treat the signature as valid." (Emphasis in original). "Redeeming qualities" are described as including, but not being limited to, "similar distinctive flourishes," and "more matching features than nonmatching features." Signatures "should be considered questionable" the guidance explained, only if they differ "in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file." (Emphasis in original). "[W]henever possible," election officials were to resolve "[s]light dissimilarities" in favor of finding that the voter's signature was valid.2

The section on signature-verification procedures goes on to repeat the notion that "clerks should presume that a voter's [absent voter] application or envelope signature is his or her genuine signature, as there are several acceptable reasons that may cause an apparent mismatch." (Emphasis omitted). Next, the guidance gave excuses or hypothetical explanations for why signatures on absent voter ballot applications and absent voter ballots might not be an exact match to those that are on file. Finally, the document again mentioned the presumption when, in conclusion, it stated that clerks "must perform their signature verification duties with the presumption that the voter's [absent voter] application or envelope signature is his or her genuine signature." (Emphasis added).

2 The guidance included a chart with what were deemed to be acceptable and unacceptable "defects" in signatures.

This is not a blanket permission to accept all signatures as valid.
The judge also did not rule on whether this was good guidance or not.
All he did was rule that this guidance needed to go through the APA red tape, and that it hadn't, because Benson didn't think it qualified for that.

Also, this "general assumption" wasn't made "because the election was just a month away"; it was a copy of existing guidelines.

When you verify a signature, you can make two types of mistakes:

1. You can accept a false signature
2. You can reject a genuine signature

Any signature verification policy is a trade-off between these two errors:

1. you could simply reject all signatures and never make a type 1 error (but lots of type 2), or
2. you could simply accept all signatures and never make a type 2 error (but maybe some of type 1).

A good policy should lie somewhere in the middle, and it should take into account which types of errors are more likely to happen and have the worse consequences. If you believe that disenfranchising voters is bad, and that it is important not to reject valid ballots; and if you also believe that fraud is not really that widespread because access to a ballot that's not yours is difficult and is often detected, then you craft your verification policy closer to the permissive version.

"More matching features than non-matching features" doesn't say "assume it is valid"; it doesn't permit all signatures. But it doesn't allow clerks to reject a signature just because it doesn't match exactly.

Obviously, the GOP would love a very restrictive version (throw all absentee ballots out) because it favors them; laws enacted all over the country since the election show that they'd rather make it difficult to vote than lose the election, up to the "no water in Georgia" law. But that does not mean that it's better, or the only way. Both types of errors are bad, and every policy is a trade-off.

This has nothing to do with how close the date of the election is.

Republicans filed suit, saying Benson's directive was not compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act.

On 3/9/21 Judge Murray basically sided with the Republicans and invalidated Benson's new "guidance."

How does that not help (a little) the Republican argument that rule changes were being made improperly?

Because it would have been up to the GOP to set these rules, and they did not do it. Benson needed to set some rule in order to conduct the election fairly (so that each county used the same policies to accept or reject signatures = equal protection).

The disagreement is over whether this "guidance" needed to undergo the APA process or not; whether it was a rule (in the legal sense) or not. Since the election is now over and the next election is a while away, there is no harm in invalidating the rule now and requiring the Secretary of State to go through the APA process. But this is explicitly not a ruling on whether this rule was improperly set or not. (If this rule had been clearly and egregiously improper, there would have been a temporary injunction against it at election time, but there wasn't.)

The GOP wanted the judge to rule that what Benson did was illegal; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that the guidance allowed fraudulent votes; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that all signatures had to be audited; the judge dismissed that. The judge did not say that there was anything wrong with the election. He just said, paraphrased, "this rule needs the APA process, you can't use it any longer until you do that".

Dismissing three counts of the complaint and upholding only one is hardly "siding with the Republicans".

Before this ruling, nobody knew whether this guidance needed to undergo the APA process. This has only now been established. It would be improper to use it any longer now that we know that. That's all the decision says.

P.S.: When you quote a large post unedited, could you please at least put the quote in a spoiler?

 

[NoParty]

That's an oversimplification. I haven't found the guidance itself, but this is what the judge said about it (and he also said that this guidance wasn't established on 10/6, it was mostly a copy of existing guidance):

The stated purpose of the at-issue document was to "provide[ ] standards" for reviewing signatures, verifying signatures, and curing missing or mismatched signatures. Under a heading entitled "Procedures for Signature Verification," the document stated that signature review "begins with the presumption that" the signature on an absent voter ballot application or envelope is valid. Further, the form instructs clerks to, if there are "any redeeming qualities in the [absent voter] application or return envelope signature as compared to the signature on file, treat the signature as valid." (Emphasis in original). "Redeeming qualities" are described as including, but not being limited to, "similar distinctive flourishes," and "more matching features than nonmatching features." Signatures "should be considered questionable" the guidance explained, only if they differ "in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signature on file." (Emphasis in original). "[W]henever possible," election officials were to resolve "[s]light dissimilarities" in favor of finding that the voter's signature was valid.2

The section on signature-verification procedures goes on to repeat the notion that "clerks should presume that a voter's [absent voter] application or envelope signature is his or her genuine signature, as there are several acceptable reasons that may cause an apparent mismatch." (Emphasis omitted). Next, the guidance gave excuses or hypothetical explanations for why signatures on absent voter ballot applications and absent voter ballots might not be an exact match to those that are on file. Finally, the document again mentioned the presumption when, in conclusion, it stated that clerks "must perform their signature verification duties with the presumption that the voter's [absent voter] application or envelope signature is his or her genuine signature." (Emphasis added).

2 The guidance included a chart with what were deemed to be acceptable and unacceptable "defects" in signatures.

This is not a blanket permission to accept all signatures as valid.
The judge also did not rule on whether this was good guidance or not.
All he did was rule that this guidance needed to go through the APA red tape, and that it hadn't, because Benson didn't think it qualified for that.

Also, this "general assumption" wasn't made "because the election was just a month away"; it was a copy of existing guidelines.

When you verify a signature, you can make two types of mistakes:

1. You can accept a false signature
2. You can reject a genuine signature

Any signature verification policy is a trade-off between these two errors:

1. you could simply reject all signatures and never make a type 1 error (but lots of type 2), or
2. you could simply accept all signatures and never make a type 2 error (but maybe some of type 1).

A good policy should lie somewhere in the middle, and it should take into account which types of errors are more likely to happen and have the worse consequences. If you believe that disenfranchising voters is bad, and that it is important not to reject valid ballots; and if you also believe that fraud is not really that widespread because access to a ballot that's not yours is difficult and is often detected, then you craft your verification policy closer to the permissive version.

"More matching features than non-matching features" doesn't say "assume it is valid"; it doesn't permit all signatures. But it doesn't allow clerks to reject a signature just because it doesn't match exactly.

Obviously, the GOP would love a very restrictive version (throw all absentee ballots out) because it favors them; laws enacted all over the country since the election show that they'd rather make it difficult to vote than lose the election, up to the "no water in Georgia" law. But that does not mean that it's better, or the only way. Both types of errors are bad, and every policy is a trade-off.

This has nothing to do with how close the date of the election is.


Because it would have been up to the GOP to set these rules, and they did not do it. Benson needed to set some rule in order to conduct the election fairly (so that each county used the same policies to accept or reject signatures = equal protection).

The disagreement is over whether this "guidance" needed to undergo the APA process or not; whether it was a rule (in the legal sense) or not. Since the election is now over and the next election is a while away, there is no harm in invalidating the rule now and requiring the Secretary of State to go through the APA process. But this is explicitly not a ruling on whether this rule was improperly set or not. (If this rule had been clearly and egregiously improper, there would have been a temporary injunction against it at election time, but there wasn't.)

The GOP wanted the judge to rule that what Benson did was illegal; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that the guidance allowed fraudulent votes; he dismissed that. The GOP wanted the judge to rule that all signatures had to be audited; the judge dismissed that. The judge did not say that there was anything wrong with the election. He just said, paraphrased, "this rule needs the APA process, you can't use it any longer until you do that".

Dismissing three counts of the complaint and upholding only one is hardly "siding with the Republicans".

Before this ruling, nobody knew whether this guidance needed to undergo the APA process. This has only now been established. It would be improper to use it any longer now that we know that. That's all the decision says.

P.S.: When you quote a large post unedited, could you please at least put the quote in a spoiler?

I'll be honest: I simply don't understand your argument.

You threw out a ton of straw men (positions I never took) to knock down,
and appear to be saying that all these news sources got these headlines wrong:
"Michigan Court of Claims invalidates absentee/mail-in ballot rule as improperly established" (Ballotopedia)
"Judge strikes down directive on absentee ballot signatures" (AP)

Obviously a March '21 ruling can't be applied retroactively to the '20 election...
but I just can't see how you could argue that Judge Murray didn't say Benson acted in violation
of the Administrative Procedures Act...which would bolster the Republican position, if only a bit.

I'm not invested in this enough to keep going back and forth. Your position does not make sense
to me, and just typing more and more isn't working...