Appeals court tosses Gaines Township voter data fraud case

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — The Michigan Court of Appeals has thrown out the criminal case against a Kent County election worker who was accused of taking voter information in the August 2022 election, ruling that his actions did not violate the letter of Michigan law.

In a 10-page decision issued Thursday, appeals court Judges Mark Boonstra, Kathleen Feeney and Adrienne Young ordered a lower court to quash James Holkeboer’s bindover.

Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker indicated he would appeal the ruling, and the county clerk said she was “deeply troubled” by it.

Becker filed charges against Holkeboer, of Caledonia, in September 2022, alleging he falsified election records when he inserted a personal USB drive into an electronic poll book at a Gaines Township precinct in August 2022 and copied voter data. In November of that year, Kent County District Court Judge Sara Smolenski decided there was enough evidence to send the case on to trial. Holkeboer appealed.

“…The trial court found that inserting one’s own flash drive into an election laptop and downloading a copy of the voter roll amounts to removing and/or secreting election records. We disagree,” the appeals court ruling reads in part.

It is not in dispute that Holkeboer used a personal USB drive to download voter information. He admits he did it so he could compare it against a version that he would obtain from the clerk via an open records request and look for discrepancies.

Testimony: Poll worker admitted to using USB drive to get voter data

What was in question is whether he broke the law. The appeals court’s ruling boiled down to a debate of semantics: whether Holkeboer technically “removed” or “secreted” the information. The court decided he did not because his actions did not damage or erase the original voter roll or make it unavailable to the clerk. The judges agreed with Holkeboer’s argument that he merely copied the information.

“(T)his statute does not criminalize merely copying of information when that act does not permanently remove or alter that information, the ruling said.

And, the court pointed out, Holkeboer’s actions did not affect the outcome of the election.

“We find that his conduct, while improper, did not violate” the law, the ruling read in part.

The ruling adds that the Legislature has not “substantively” updated the law in question since it was enacted in 1954, though it could have done so to cover situations that might arise as election management became digital.

Becker, the prosecutor, was skeptical of the court’s reasoning.

“It seems a bit troubling, heading into a major presidential election, that an election worker can take information from an election computer and not be in violation of the law,” Becker said in a statement to News 8 Thursday. “I think this is an important issue that needs further review.”

Kent County Clerk Lisa Posthumus Lyons was also “extremely disappoint(ed)” by the ruling, she said in a statement.

“I’m deeply troubled the Court of Appeals did not see fit to hold accountable an individual who knowingly and secretly entered a personal flash drive into our election equipment, and without authorization obtained information for his own purposes, beyond the bounds of his duty as an election worker,” the clerk’s statement said. “Our citizens deserve to have faith in their elections and in those who work them, and this breach of public trust must be addressed.”

She said she was “looking forward” to Becker’s appeal.

“We will continue to do everything possible to keep Kent County’s elections secure, transparent, fair, and accurate,” she said.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WOODTV.com.