Date: 10-25-2024

Case Style:

People of the State of Michigan v. James Donald Holkeboer, a/k/a James David Holkeboer

Case Number: 22-01187-FH

Judge: Not Available

Court: Circuit Court, Kent County, Michigan

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kent County District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Grandrapids Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Grand Rapids, Michigan election fraud for falsifying election returns or records during the August 2022 primarily election criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

James Donald Holkeboer, a/k/a James David Holkeboer
served as an election inspector during the August 2022 primary election, is charged with election fraud for falsifying election returns or records under MCL 168.932(c) (which makes it illegal for an election inspector to "fraudulently remove or secrete" certain election records), and using a computer to commit a crime, MCL 752.796. Defendant allegedly used a USB ¶ash drive to copy information from the electronic poll book stored on a laptop at the polling location. The defendant's stated intent was to compare the downloaded data against records he planned to obtain from the county clerk through a request under the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq. The district court found the allegations sufficient to bind defendant over for trial, and the Kent Circuit Court signaled its agreement by denying defendant's motion to quash the charges. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, as a matter of law, making a digital copy of protected election records and removing the copy from a polling location did not constitute fraudulent removal or secreting of election records under MCL 168.932(c).

* * *


"In modern times, most voter information and election records-other than physical ballots-are maintained in a digital format. Michigan's Secretary of State maintains a comprehensive qualified voter file (QVF) database, see MCL 168.509o and MCL 168.509q, that is digitized. It is true that the legislation that mandated the creation of Michigan's statewide QVF was enacted by 1994 PA 441, effective January 10, 1995, and that the QVF was always intended to be maintained in a computerized, electronic format, see MCL 168.509p and MCL 168.509r, as enacted by 1994 PA 441. But under 1994 PA 441, the QVF was not required to be ready for use in elections until January 1, 1998. Since the enactment of 1994 PA 441 and amendment of MCL 168.932 in 1995, there have been additional changes to how elections are conducted in Michigan. For example, language concerning verification of digitized signatures in the QVF was added to the Michigan Election Law by 2005 PA 71. The statute mandating the use of an electronic poll book by cities and townships, which must be downloaded from the state's QVF software, was not enacted until 2018. See MCL 168.668b, as enacted by 2018 PA 614. There was also a substantial update of Michigan's voting machine technologies following the 2000 presidential election and the recount litigation that followed. See Carrasco, Jr., Senate Fiscal Agency, State Notes-Topics of Legislative Interest, Updating Michigan's Voting Machine Technology, Fall 2015. These are all relatively recent developments.

No one disputes that since the 1990s there have been numerous amendments to the Michigan Election Law, an increase in the digitization of voter information and election records, and an increased use of electronic voting machines. Despite these changes, MCL 168.932 has not been updated since 1995 and the operative language has much older origins. " Elizabeth M. Welch

People v. Holkeboer, COA 365964, SC 167213 (Mich. Oct 25, 2024)

Outcome: Application for leave to appeal denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: