Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is facing a bar complaint from her predecessor resulting from her “deceitful” efforts to keep presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the ballot.
State Sen. Ruth Johnson, R-Holly, filed a complaint on Oct. 11 with the State Bar of Michigan’s Attorney Grievance Commission that claims Benson violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct in her legal fight against Kennedy’s removal from the Michigan ballot after he dropped out of the race and endorsed former President Donald Trump.
“As put forth above, Benson’s conduct rises to false misrepresentation of law. However, in her official capacity as secretary of state, Benson’s framing of state laws for the purpose of furthering her goal is deceitful in nature,” Johnson wrote. “Benson’s decision to put a candidate back on a ballot, after his name was removed, after the ballots were certified, and after the statutory deadline lapsed, is an abuse of authority as secretary of state resulting in a manipulation of state election procedures and calling into question her political priorities.”
Johnson served as Michigan’s 42nd Secretary of State from 2011 to 2019, after beating Benson in 2010 by 5% of the vote. Johnson was re-elected in 2014, before Benson won the 2018 election over Republican Mary Treder Lang.
Kennedy suspended his independent campaign for president and endorsed Trump in August, notifying state election officials he wanted his name removed from the ballot. Benson’s Bureau of Elections refused, forcing Kennedy to sue in state court.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Yates rejected Kennedy’s request, but the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the ruling. In September, the case reached the Michigan Supreme Court, where a Democratic majority of Supreme Court justices reversed the appeals court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling came just months after Benson’s Michigan Legacy PAC donated $82,500 to Supreme Court Justice Kyra Bolden, a Democrat appointed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who is running in the 2024 election to retain her seat.
Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
MORE NEWS: Sturgis RV facility closing, laying off 121 after Gretchen Whitmer gave over $1M from taxpayers
Kennedy’s inclusion on the Michigan ballot is widely viewed by political observers as beneficial to Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats.
The September ruling forced Kennedy to appeal to federal court, where U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David William McKeague found earlier this month Benson attempted to “influence the upcoming presidential election by manipulating state election procedures,” The Daily Signal reports.
Regardless, a three judge appeals panel ruled Kennedy’s name should stay on the ballot in Michigan, and Kennedy requested an opportunity to make his case before the full appellate court.
Johnson’s complaint points to McKeague’s findings that “Secretary Benson’s actions … serve no purpose other than to sow needless confusion in a presidential election,” and would “inevitably cause confusion, and … undermine faith in this core democratic institution.”
Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
Johnson notes Benson contradicted herself in legal proceedings over Kennedy, essentially lying to the courts to secure the outcome she wanted.
“During litigation, Secretary Benson’s statutory responsibility to issue the ‘call of the election’ became due. The deadline for her responsibility was well-known by the Courts. In fact, Secretary Benson referenced this deadline in her Michigan Court of Claims brief, her District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan brief, her United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit brief and in her Michigan Court of Appeals brief, all certifying September 6th as this year’s deadline in compliance with” Michigan law, Johnson wrote.
“On September 6th, Secretary Benson issued the call of the election and specified which candidates should appear on the ballot; Kennedy was not listed as a candidate for President,” the complaint read. “Shortly after this submission, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed Kennedy’s earlier request for relief with regards to the Bureau of Elections’ rejection of his candidacy withdrawal.”
“On the same day (September 9th), Secretary Benson sent an ‘updated candidate listing’ including Kennedy’s name to the county clerk, three days after the statutory deadline,” Johnson wrote.
MORE NEWS: House Speaker Matt Hall: Public safety funding increases will be awarded based on driving down crime
On Wednesday, the federal appeals court denied Kennedy’s appeal for a hearing before the full court, with six judges in support of the denial, two issuing dissents, and McKeague offering a “technically-neutral statement that nevertheless make it clear he would have given Kennedy another chance to make his case,” Courthouse News Service reports.
“To sum up, the Secretary’s reinstatement of Kennedy on the ballot unconstitutionally compels Kennedy’s speech and violates Michigan’s own deadlines. It also forces Kennedy to be on the ballot for an office he no longer intends to hold if he were to win. And it has the unfortunate result of potentially misleading Michigan voters,” Judge Amul Thapar, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in dissent. “Finally, this all happens at a time when it is crucial for state governments to assure voters of the integrity of their elections.”
Judge Chad Readler put it another way in his dissent.
“Consider the asymmetries in Michigan’s 2024 presidential ballot alone. One major party candidate dropped out of the race just weeks before his party’s late-August convention, and after winning every state party primary, including Michigan,” he wrote. “The week after that convention, Kennedy sought to do the same, in large part due to his rival’s departure from the race.
“The Secretary voiced no concern over the former. Yet she fights tooth and nail to oppose the latter,” the dissent read. “With all of this in mind, it becomes evident that, even under the First Amendment’s most forgiving level of scrutiny – rational basis review – the Secretary’s unusual action do not pass muster.
“In the end, the Secretary never explains why she tainted the state’s presidential ballot with the name of an individual who is not seeking office, after previously excluding him.”