Latest news with #MichiganBureauofElections
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State: Drick violated campaign finance law when criticizing opponent from the dais
LIVINGSTON — In response to a complaint filed against County Board Chair Jay Drick by Livingston Democratic Party Judy Daubenmier, the Michigan Bureau of Elections has concluded Drick violated campaign finance law. Drick has reimbursed the county $2.56 and received a formal warning for his actions. During a board meeting on July 22, 2024, Drick responded to criticism during public comment from former commissioner Steve Williams. At the time, Drick was running for re-election against challenger Heather Williams, who is married to Steve. 'I've sat here quietly week after week, listening to a litany of allegations, bogus issues about three commissioners running for re-election. I've looked the three challengers and their husband and their father and their friends in the eye from this seat as they've attempted time and time to discredit our good works and I've never responded until now," Drick said, proceeding to argue some of the points made against him. More: Livingston County Board Chair accused of campaigning during public meeting More: State: Drick overstepped by criticizing his opponent during a public meeting After a second round of public comment, Drick 'exercised (his) option to be the last to speak.' From the dais, he criticized Williams for how long she's lived in the county and for a lack of experience in public office. He also alleged she'd filed for bankruptcy and had $358,000 in unsecured debt she hadn't repaid. Williams told The Daily the bankruptcy filing and debt were her ex-husband's. Drick went on to list his qualifications and experience in the community and on the board. Daubenmier filed her complaint soon after, arguing Drick's criticism of his opponent and promotion of his own campaign violated campaign during an official meeting, in an official capacity, violated campaign finance law. Daubenmier cited Michigan Campaign Finance Act Sec. 57 '... which prohibits public officials from campaigning while on the job and being paid.' Drick's attorney, Mattis Nordfjord, said the complaint failed to show his comments were outside the "scope of exemption." He also argued Drick had a right, under the First Amendment, to express his views on policy issues. On Dec. 18, 2024, an attorney with the Michigan Department of State sent a letter to Nordfjord. In the letter, the state found, after reviewing the video, Drick's first statement where he defended the actions of the board weren't a violation — but his critiques of Williams and the promotion of his own campaign were. '(The second comment was) directed at his opponent and criticizing their qualifications for public office," the letter read. The letter cited an opinion from former attorney general Frank Kelley, which said a commission or board can 'expend appropriated funds to inform the public in an objective manner on issues relevant to the function of the commission or board,' but not to encourage support or opposition for a specific candidate or ballot proposal. On Thursday, May 8, the state sent a letter to a different attorney for Drick, Rich McNulty. The letter acknowledged that Drick reimbursed the county for the two-minute comment, for a total of $2.56. 'Given this, the department concludes that a formal warning is a sufficient resolution to the complaint,' the letter read. The price tag left Daubenmier frustrated, she said. 'The paltry reimbursement to the county, calculated by someone who reports to Jay Drick in the county chain of command, will not deter any elected official from blatantly campaigning during county meetings,' she wrote in an emailed statement to the Daily. 'But the stigma remains that the state did find there is reason to believe that Jay Drick, a lawyer who should know better, violated the law — and that will always be on his record.' — Contact reporter Tess Ware at tware@ This article originally appeared on Livingston Daily: State finds Livingston County's Jay Drick violated campaign finance law
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rebuttal filed against Garnet Lewis' explanation of EPIC campaign finance complaint
SAUGATUCK — Six months after a complaint was submitted to the Michigan Bureau of Elections against an organization called EPIC operating in Saugatuck, there's been movement. In his complaint, filed in October 2024, former Saugatuck Mayor Ken Trester claimed EPIC hadn't filed a legal statement of organization (a requirement under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act), before posting campaign signage and newspaper advertisements for Saugatuck City Council incumbents Lauren Stanton, Helen Baldwin and Scott Dean. An address listed for EPIC on the signage matched an address listed for "Empowering People Investing in Communities" on LARA, an online filing system for Michigan corporations. The directory lists Leigh G. Lewis (Garnet Lewis) as president and resident agent. At the time, the Allegan County Clerk's Office confirmed to The Sentinel that EPIC had not filed the required statement. More: State investigating election claims against Garnet Lewis-directed nonprofit in Saugatuck In March, the Michigan Bureau of Elections provided Trester with a copy of Lewis' response to the complaint, in which she took responsibility for the error. In her response, Lewis claimed, after realizing the statement of organization hadn't been submitted, one was filed with the Allegan County Clerk's Office in November and processed in December. Lewis also said the standard "error and omission notice" was received and signed in January 2025. "I understand there will be a fine for (the) delay," she wrote. Lewis told The Sentinel via email the fine was $1,000. 'The issue has been resolved and the campaign committee has been dissolved," she added. But that's not entirely true, according to Trester, who filed a rebuttal to Garnet's response on April 11. 'I wish to request that you do not accept (Lewis') application to dissolve EPIC,' Trester wrote. 'There are many unresolved issues regarding this Super PAC. In particular, (Lewis') response does not address EPIC's campaign spending during the local elections of 2022 or 2023. 'I ask that the BOE not allow EPIC to be dissolved until the migration of the campaign finance reports that (Lewis) did file are complete, so that the public, which has been denied the opportunity to see who EPIC's donors are and what its expenditures were, can have the opportunity to review those reports, to know who received funding from the PAC and if any irregularities occurred in the election campaigns.' Garnet refused to comment on the rebuttal to The Sentinel. "There is enough hate in the world," she said. "I won't add to it.' Lewis was first elected to Saugatuck City Council in November 2019. She secured re-election in November 2021 for a two-year term ending November 2023. Shortly after, Lewis was selected by council to serve as mayor for a one-year term, running through November 2022. This isn't the first time Lewis has run into election challenges. In August 2023, she pled guilty to a single charge of failing to report a violation on a nominating/initiative petition. In court, she admitted she failed to sign a petition sheet and didn't report it. Lewis agreed to pay $500 in fines and court fees, and was given a delayed sentence of six months. The case was later dismissed. She has also faced ire over the listing of several individuals as directors and officers of EPIC on LARA, several of whom denied holding the roles. In a letter sent to Allegan County Clerk Bob Genetski and provided to The Sentinel, Mary Fechtig, Elizabeth Estes, Julie Ridl and Holly Leo wrote, "We write to clarify in no uncertain terms that none of the undersigned had any knowledge of the EPIC entity before seeing (a) Facebook post on Oct. 25, 2024. "In addition, none of us have any memory of agreeing to act as directors or officers of EPIC. Finally, after a review of our personal records, including emails, text, and hard copy materials, we can find no indication of any of us having involvement in (EPIC). " ... It goes without saying, therefore, that none of us have been involved in a decision related to EPIC's funding or other support of political candidates in the current race of Saugatuck City Council.' Dan Fox, another local resident, hopes to file a formal fraud complaint on that front, but is having difficulty finding the right department for enforcement. Subscribe: Get all your breaking news and unlimited access to our local coverage LARA, he said, doesn't have an enforcement role, and the Bureau of Elections wouldn't investigate because another investigation is already underway. The Michigan Attorney General's Office directed Fox to their Charitable Trust Division. In their response, the Charitable Trust Division said the matter falls outside the scope of their normal enforcement and regulatory authority. Fox isn't giving up, though. 'This lack of an appetite on the part of the State of Michigan to investigate and prosecute clear, evidence-supported, multiple fraudulent filings with the state is unbelievable, disheartening, and ethically vapid," he wrote via email. The rebuttal filed in the first complaint will enter a determination phase under the Board of Elections, which has 45 days to make a decision. — Contact reporter Austin Metz at ametz@ This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Saugatuck residents want more answers on EPIC finance complaint
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Michigan GOP lawmakers petition SCOTUS to strike down voter-approved election laws
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — Nearly a dozen Republican lawmakers in Michigan are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to declare several voter-approved election laws unconstitutional. The that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated their constitutional rights by enforcing laws passed through ballot proposals in 2018 and 2022. The measures include automatic voter registration, no-reason absentee voting and the creation of an independent commission to redraw legislative and congressional district boundaries. Major construction project resumes on Mackinac Bridge The lawmakers claim these laws violate the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause, which states: 'The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.' 'This case is about whether the people's representatives can speak on their behalf in response to blatant violations of the U.S. Constitution by state officials,' said William Wagner, co-counsel on the petition. The petitioning legislators include state Sens. Jonathan Lindsey and Jim Runestad and Reps. Steve Carra, James DeSana, Joseph Fox, Neil Friske, Matt Maddock, Brad Paquette, Angela Rigas, Joshua Schriver and Rachelle Smit, all Republicans. Named as defendants are Whitmer, Benson and Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections. Trump takes aim at national library agency: What that could mean for Michigan libraries Benson , stating, 'Michigan voters have a right to enact laws that reflect their values, and politicians have a duty to stand by the will of the voters. The idea that the time, place and manner of federal elections law-making is beyond the right of voters to self-determine is anti-democratic, and already multiple courts have reaffirmed this under law.' A federal district court dismissed the lawmakers' initial lawsuit in 2023, citing a lack of standing. Now, they are appealing to the nation's highest court. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
