Far-Right Operatives Face Trial in Michigan for Racially Targeted Voter Suppression Robocalls
Detroit, MI – The Michigan Court of Appeals delivered a significant blow to far-right operatives Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl on Friday, upholding criminal charges stemming from a series of robocalls targeting Black voters in Detroit during the 2020 election. The calls, part of a broader campaign of election misinformation across Midwestern states, falsely claimed that mail-in voting would lead to dire consequences like police using voter information to execute warrants, credit card companies collecting debts, and even the CDC leveraging data for mandatory vaccinations. The court’s decision marks a crucial step towards holding the duo accountable for their alleged attempt to suppress voter turnout through the dissemination of racially charged disinformation.
The case, initially brought by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in 2020, alleges that Burkman and Wohl made approximately 85,000 robocalls across several states, spreading fear and confusion about voting procedures. The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC), after hearing arguments in late 2023, directed the Court of Appeals to determine whether the defendants’ actions violated state election laws, specifically focusing on the use of “corrupt means” to influence voters. The MSC explicitly characterized the robocalls as an "immoral or depraved" attempt to deter Black voters in Detroit using "racially based motives."
The appeals court’s ruling affirmed that the robocalls, by disseminating false information about the consequences of mail-in voting, directly interfered with a voting procedure and thus violated Michigan law, which prohibits attempts to influence or deter voters through "bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device." The court emphasized that mail-in voting is a legitimate voting procedure and that the robocalls explicitly linked this procedure to a series of fabricated negative consequences. This connection, the court argued, constituted an attempt to manipulate the election process through the spread of misinformation.
The court’s decision meticulously addressed the legal intricacies of the case. Judge Anica Letica, writing for the majority, highlighted that the robocalls explicitly linked the act of voting by mail to a series of negative repercussions, thereby creating a false narrative around a legitimate voting procedure. This, the court concluded, constituted an attempt to influence the election through "corrupt means." The court’s decision emphasized the importance of protecting the integrity of the electoral process and safeguarding voters from misinformation campaigns designed to suppress participation.
However, the ruling was not without dissent. Judge James Redford argued that the robocalls did not directly address voting requirements or procedures but rather focused on potential negative consequences of absentee voting. He asserted that this distinction meant the court had not fully addressed the questions posed by the Michigan Supreme Court and therefore could not uphold the charges. This dissenting opinion underscores the complexity of the legal arguments surrounding the case and the challenges of defining the boundaries of protected political speech versus illegal voter intimidation.
Attorney General Nessel applauded the court’s decision, emphasizing the crucial need to protect the fundamental right to vote from intimidation tactics. She stated that the robocalls represented "a gross misrepresentation of voting procedures meant to scare voters from participating in our elections.” The case is now expected to proceed to trial, where Burkman and Wohl will face the charges against them. This legal battle represents a significant test of Michigan’s election laws and underscores the growing concern over the use of misinformation to suppress voter turnout, particularly among minority communities. The trial’s outcome will likely have far-reaching implications for future efforts to combat voter suppression tactics and protect the integrity of the democratic process.
