Benson's Voter Rigging SCHEME EXPLODES! Court SHATTERS Her Power Grab!

A Michigan court delivered a significant ruling on December 4, 2025, rebuking the attempts of the state’s top election official to alter established mail-in ballot procedures. The judge’s decision struck down guidance that would have allowed absentee ballots with discrepancies in identifying numbers to be counted despite those flaws.

The core of the dispute centered on a 2024 law designed to prevent voter fraud. This legislation explicitly requires a perfect match between the unique identification numbers on the ballot stub and the return envelope – a safeguard the Secretary of State’s instructions sought to circumvent.

The lawsuit, spearheaded by the Republican National Committee, the Michigan Republican Party, and a local township clerk, argued that the Secretary of State’s directives directly contradicted the legislature’s intent. The plaintiffs maintained that the guidance risked undermining the traceability of absentee ballots and potentially opening the door to irregularities.

This isn’t the first time the Secretary of State’s actions have faced legal challenge. Previous rulings have already questioned the authority used to loosen critical protections surrounding mail-in voting, revealing a pattern of contested decisions.

Adding to the controversy, the Secretary of State recently refused a request from federal authorities for access to complete voter rolls. The stated reason – protecting citizen privacy – was met with skepticism, given the federal government’s role in issuing the very identification information purportedly being safeguarded.

As the Secretary of State considers a future run for governor, these repeated legal setbacks raise questions about a commitment to secure and lawful election administration. The preservation of these safeguards, thanks to the efforts of the RNC and dedicated local officials, remains a critical priority.

The court’s decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to established election laws. It underscores the principle that even seemingly minor procedural changes can have significant implications for the integrity of the voting process.