By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service
The Court of Claims is not convinced the subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee to the secretary of state have a valid legislative purpose.
In an order issued by Judge Sima Patel, both the House and Secretary of State Joceyln Benson were denied summary disposition and directed to appear before the court virtually for a scheduling conference on Nov. 13.
The order for the case, Michigan House v. Joceyln Benson (Case No. 25-000096-MZ), was not final.
The requests for summary dispositions required the court to review the factual sufficiency of the claim.
The court found the only purpose cited for the issuance of the subpoenas was during the April 14, 2025, House Oversight Committee meeting. The reason, pulled from the minutes, is included in the decision.
“The [House] has the right to know how [Secretary Benson] is instructing local election officials to conduct the elections within this state. Secretary Benson’s refusal to provide the [OC] with basic training materials provided to local election officials indicates that the training provided does not comply with the Michigan Election Law,” the minutes said. “If the training did comply with the Michigan Election Law, Secretary Benson would not be withholding the documents from the [OC].”
The language suggests that the House intended to punish Benson and the Department of State for legal violations, Patel wrote, but law enforcement is not within the purview of the legislative branch.
The decision also acknowledged that the House stated in letters and pleadings that it wants to review the training materials to determine whether changes to election laws are necessary, however, that stands in stark contrast to the reasons cited at the committee meeting, the court found.
“This creates a question of fact regarding the Legislature’s purpose, precluding summary disposition in either side’s favor on the issue of whether the Legislature had a proper legislative purpose to issue the subpoenas to defendants,” Patel wrote.
Benson and the department also objected to the subpoenas, arguing that they were overbroad in scope and burdensome, comprising of 22 gigabytes of data.
The court agreed, saying that if the House Election Integrity Committee sought to amend Michigan election law, it should have been able to narrow down the requested materials to achieve that goal.
“The House has not identified any issues or shortcomings in the law that it seeks to address,” Patel wrote. “By issuing subpoenas for the entirety of the training material provided by defendants to local election officials, the House is in danger of invading defendants’ supervisory control in the election arena.”
Gongwer News Service
The Court of Claims is not convinced the subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee to the secretary of state have a valid legislative purpose.
In an order issued by Judge Sima Patel, both the House and Secretary of State Joceyln Benson were denied summary disposition and directed to appear before the court virtually for a scheduling conference on Nov. 13.
The order for the case, Michigan House v. Joceyln Benson (Case No. 25-000096-MZ), was not final.
The requests for summary dispositions required the court to review the factual sufficiency of the claim.
The court found the only purpose cited for the issuance of the subpoenas was during the April 14, 2025, House Oversight Committee meeting. The reason, pulled from the minutes, is included in the decision.
“The [House] has the right to know how [Secretary Benson] is instructing local election officials to conduct the elections within this state. Secretary Benson’s refusal to provide the [OC] with basic training materials provided to local election officials indicates that the training provided does not comply with the Michigan Election Law,” the minutes said. “If the training did comply with the Michigan Election Law, Secretary Benson would not be withholding the documents from the [OC].”
The language suggests that the House intended to punish Benson and the Department of State for legal violations, Patel wrote, but law enforcement is not within the purview of the legislative branch.
The decision also acknowledged that the House stated in letters and pleadings that it wants to review the training materials to determine whether changes to election laws are necessary, however, that stands in stark contrast to the reasons cited at the committee meeting, the court found.
“This creates a question of fact regarding the Legislature’s purpose, precluding summary disposition in either side’s favor on the issue of whether the Legislature had a proper legislative purpose to issue the subpoenas to defendants,” Patel wrote.
Benson and the department also objected to the subpoenas, arguing that they were overbroad in scope and burdensome, comprising of 22 gigabytes of data.
The court agreed, saying that if the House Election Integrity Committee sought to amend Michigan election law, it should have been able to narrow down the requested materials to achieve that goal.
“The House has not identified any issues or shortcomings in the law that it seeks to address,” Patel wrote. “By issuing subpoenas for the entirety of the training material provided by defendants to local election officials, the House is in danger of invading defendants’ supervisory control in the election arena.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
