Robocall Duo’s Election Interference Charges Upheld by Michigan Court of Appeals
DETROIT – Two far-right operatives, Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl, are one step closer to facing trial for their alleged scheme to suppress Black voter turnout during the 2020 presidential election. The Michigan Court of Appeals on Friday affirmed criminal charges against the pair, stemming from a series of robocalls that spread misinformation about mail-in voting, particularly targeting Detroit residents. This decision marks a significant victory for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who has relentlessly pursued the case since charges were initially filed in 2020. The ruling comes after a complex legal battle that ascended to the Michigan Supreme Court, underscoring the gravity of the accusations and their potential implications for election integrity.
The case revolves around approximately 85,000 robocalls made across several Midwestern states, including Michigan, during the heated 2020 election cycle. Prosecutors allege that Burkman and Wohl deliberately crafted these calls to disseminate false information about voting by mail, aiming to dissuade Black voters from participating in the election. The calls warned of potential consequences for voting by mail, including the use of voter information by law enforcement, credit card companies, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These claims, described by prosecutors as “racist and divisive,” were intended to exploit existing anxieties and distrust within the Black community regarding government institutions.
The legal journey of this case began with charges filed by Attorney General Nessel in 2020. The case then proceeded through various legal challenges, ultimately reaching the Michigan Supreme Court. In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Burkman and Wohl’s actions constituted an attempt to deter Black voters through "immoral or depraved" methods, citing "racially based motives." The Supreme Court then directed the Court of Appeals to determine whether the robocalls specifically violated Michigan’s election law, which prohibits attempts to influence or deter voters through "bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device."
The Court of Appeals, in its Friday ruling, affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that the robocalls indeed violated Michigan election law. Judge Anica Letica, writing for the majority, stated that "voting by mail is a voting procedure," and the robocalls, by spreading misinformation about this procedure, constituted a corrupt attempt to influence voters. The court rejected the defense’s arguments that the robocalls merely highlighted potential negative consequences of absentee voting rather than interfering with the voting process itself. Letica emphasized that the false information disseminated aimed to deter voters from exercising their right to vote by mail.
However, the Court of Appeals decision wasn’t unanimous. Judge James Redford filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that the robocalls didn’t directly address voting procedures or requirements, but rather potential downstream consequences of absentee voting. He asserted that the court hadn’t fully satisfied the inquiries set forth by the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold the charges. This dissent highlights the complex legal questions at the heart of the case, particularly the intersection of free speech, election integrity, and the permissible boundaries of political campaigning.
Attorney General Nessel praised the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the importance of protecting the fundamental right to vote from intimidation tactics. “Voter intimidation strikes at the core of our democracy,” Nessel stated. "This ruling affirms that spreading disinformation to discourage participation in our elections is a criminal act and will be prosecuted." The case now moves forward, bringing Burkman and Wohl closer to a trial where a jury will ultimately decide their fate. This case serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing battle against election interference and the crucial role of state attorneys general in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond the actions of two individuals. It underscores the growing concerns about the spread of election misinformation, particularly its targeting of vulnerable communities. The case also highlights the legal and ethical challenges surrounding campaign tactics that skirt the line between legitimate political discourse and deliberate voter suppression. The upcoming trial will undoubtedly be closely watched, not only in Michigan but across the nation, as it could set a precedent for future cases involving election interference and disinformation campaigns.
