In a dramatic development that has resonated far beyond Michigan’s state lines, a judge in Lansing has dismissed criminal charges against 15 Republicans accused of acting as so-called "fake electors" for Donald Trump in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. The decision, delivered by District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons on September 9, 2025, has reignited fierce debate over the boundaries of political protest, the intricacies of the U.S. electoral process, and the lingering aftershocks of the 2020 contest.
The legal saga began in 2023, when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced sweeping felony charges against 16 individuals. The group, comprised of several prominent state Republican Party officials, was accused of forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery. At the heart of the case was a clandestine meeting on December 14, 2020, in the basement of the Michigan Republican Party headquarters. There, the accused allegedly signed certificates falsely claiming to be Michigan’s "duly elected and qualified electors" for president and vice president—despite Joe Biden’s clear victory in the state.
Michigan, a crucial swing state, had awarded all 16 of its electoral votes to Biden after he won 2.8 million votes to Trump’s nearly 2.65 million. The group’s actions were part of a broader wave of attempts in several states to challenge or overturn the 2020 results, fueled by Trump’s persistent and unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud. According to BBC News, the group “believed Trump’s false assertions that there was widespread voter fraud and attempted to install themselves in place of their Democratic Party opponents.”
During Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Simmons made clear her reasoning. "This is a fraud case, and we have to prove intent, and I don’t believe that there’s sufficient evidence to prove intent," she told the court, as reported by ABC News. She emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish that the defendants intended to defraud anyone, noting, "I believe that they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress, and that’s based on the statements of all of the people’s witnesses."
Judge Simmons further elaborated that the defendants were not "savvy or sophisticated enough to fully understand the electoral process." She pointed out that the alternate certificates the group signed did not attempt to forge official seals or the governor’s signature, nor did they state they were official documents of the state of Michigan. "There’s many things that could cause a pause in the electoral process, and it doesn’t mean that it’s criminal," Simmons said, according to ABC News. She also acknowledged that the defendants "sincerely believed, for some reason, that there were some serious irregularities with the election or with the voting. This was their belief, and their actions were prompted by this belief."
With these findings, Simmons ordered that "these cases will not be bound over to the circuit court. Each case will be dismissed." The decision left the courtroom divided and the state’s political establishment abuzz.
Attorney General Nessel, a Democrat, was quick to voice her disappointment. In a video statement referenced by BBC News, she declared, "This was, in my belief, a coordinated attempt to overturn the will of the American people and reinstate Donald Trump as president, despite Joe Biden’s victory in the election to that office." Nessel also stated, "The evidence was clear: They lied. They knew they lied, and they tried to steal the votes of millions of Michiganders." She indicated her office would consider filing an appeal, saying, "We will determine at a later time whether we will appeal."
Defense attorneys and Michigan Republican leaders, on the other hand, celebrated the dismissal as a vindication. John Freeman, a lawyer for one of the defendants, called the ruling "a true testament to the way the system is supposed to work," according to BBC News. Kevin Kijewski, representing Clifford Frost Jr., said the decision "dismantles AG Dana Nessel’s baseless case and lays bare her long-standing political motivations." Michigan Republican Party Chair Jim Runestad described the outcome as "not only a huge win for these electors but also for justice itself," as reported by NPR.
The case in Michigan is just one chapter in a much larger national story. Similar criminal proceedings are ongoing in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, each involving individuals who attempted to act as alternate electors for Trump in 2020. In Arizona, a judge recently sent the "fake elector" case back to a grand jury, while Nevada’s case remains stuck in a jurisdictional appeal. Georgia’s high-profile prosecution faces its own legal hurdles, and the federal election interference case against Trump was dropped following his reelection in 2024.
The events surrounding the Michigan case cannot be separated from the broader context of the 2020 election and its aftermath. The protracted vote counting, complicated by new pandemic-era rules, led to a delayed result in November 2020. Trump’s refusal to concede and his repeated false claims of victory fueled protests, legal challenges, and, ultimately, the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol as Congress prepared to certify the Electoral College results. As NBC News noted, Michigan was the first state to bring charges against fake electors, reflecting the intensity of the legal and political battles that followed the election.
The legal threshold for criminal conviction in fraud cases is high, hinging on the ability to prove intent to deceive. Judge Simmons’ ruling underscores the difficulty prosecutors face in demonstrating that political actors, especially those acting on sincerely held beliefs—even if those beliefs are unfounded—crossed the line into criminal conduct. "This is not for the court to decide whether that was true or false, but this was their belief, and their actions were prompted by this belief," Simmons said, according to NBC News.
As the dust settles in Lansing, the fallout from the decision is likely to reverberate through political and legal circles. For some, it is a cautionary tale about the dangers of criminalizing political protest and the need to protect constitutional rights, even in contentious times. For others, it is a troubling sign that those who attempt to subvert democratic outcomes can escape accountability if they claim good faith or lack of sophistication.
With the possibility of an appeal still on the table and similar cases pending across the nation, the debate over the role of alternate electors, the boundaries of protest, and the meaning of intent in election law is far from over. The Michigan decision, for now, stands as a stark reminder of the complexities facing American democracy in the aftermath of a deeply divisive election.
