At a glance

• A Michigan judge dismissed the state’s criminal case against 15 people accused of acting as alternate presidential electors for Donald Trump following the 2020 election.
• The ruling effectively ends Michigan’s prosecution at the trial-court level, though the state can seek review or appeal.
• The decision is a major development in a multi-state set of investigations surrounding alternate slates of electors submitted in several battleground states.

What the ruling means

The judge’s order throws out the remaining charges against the defendants, who were accused of signing and submitting documents purporting to be Michigan’s official Electoral College votes for Donald Trump despite the state’s certified results favoring Joe Biden. According to AP News reporting, the dismissal turned on legal issues that undercut the prosecution’s case—such as how specific state statutes apply to the conduct, what must be proven about intent, and where jurisdiction or venue properly lies for certain alleged acts.

While the precise legal reasoning is laid out in the court’s written decision, the bottom line is that the court found the charges could not proceed under the theories advanced by the state. Prosecutors retain options, including asking a higher court to reverse the dismissal or refining legal arguments if permitted by law, but the ruling marks a significant setback for Michigan’s case.

Background: Michigan and the “alternate electors” effort

In late 2020, as states certified their results, groups of Republicans in several swing states that Biden won assembled and signed certificates claiming to be their states’ legitimate presidential electors for Trump. In Michigan, 16 Republicans met and signed such a certificate. In 2023, Michigan’s attorney general announced forgery- and conspiracy-related charges tied to that episode.

Over time, the Michigan case narrowed. One participant ultimately was no longer facing charges, leaving 15 defendants when the judge issued this dismissal. Separate civil and criminal proceedings nationally have probed the broader strategy surrounding alternate electors, and outcomes have varied state by state.

Key issues the court weighed

• Statutory fit: Whether the alleged conduct met the specific elements of Michigan’s forgery or related offenses.
• Intent: What prosecutors must prove about the defendants’ knowledge and purpose when they signed and transmitted the documents.
• Jurisdiction and venue: Whether Michigan courts are the proper forum for all aspects of the alleged wrongdoing, given that Electoral College documents are ultimately used in federal processes.
• Probable cause and evidentiary sufficiency: Whether the state presented enough to justify taking the case to trial under the charged statutes.

Courts in other states have grappled with similar threshold questions. Some have allowed cases to proceed in whole or in part; others have dismissed charges fully or required prosecutors to refile in a different venue or under different statutes.

Reactions and next steps

Defense attorneys characterized the ruling as a vindication, arguing their clients acted on advice and within contested political and legal territory after the 2020 election. The Michigan attorney general’s office has previously indicated it would consider all appellate options when cases are dismissed on legal grounds; AP News reports that the state can seek review if it believes the judge misapplied the law.

If prosecutors appeal, an intermediate appellate court would review the judge’s legal conclusions. If the dismissal stands, it could influence how other jurisdictions frame similar prosecutions, especially on questions of venue and statutory interpretation.

Why it matters beyond Michigan

The outcome underscores how state-level criminal law intersects with federal election procedures. Because Electoral College certifications are part of a federal count, defense attorneys in multiple states have argued that certain state statutes either do not apply or were used too broadly. Prosecutors, by contrast, have maintained that creating and transmitting false documents, or conspiring to do so, are traditional state crimes regardless of any federal overlay.

The Michigan ruling adds to a patchwork of decisions nationally, shaping the outer boundaries of criminal liability for post-election conduct and offering guidance to lawmakers who may seek clearer statutory language about future election-related offenses.

Timeline

• November–December 2020: Michigan certifies Joe Biden as the winner; a group of Republicans sign paperwork purporting to be the state’s Trump electors.
• 2023: The Michigan attorney general files forgery- and conspiracy-related charges connected to the alternate electors certificate.
• Subsequent pretrial period: Court hearings test the sufficiency of the charges and the applicability of specific statutes; at least one defendant is no longer charged, leaving 15.
• Judge’s dismissal: The court tosses the remaining case against the 15 accused alternate electors. The state may consider appeal.

What to watch

• Whether Michigan’s attorney general appeals and on which legal grounds.
• How appellate courts, if involved, address statutory interpretation, intent, and venue questions.
• Ripple effects on parallel prosecutions or investigations in other states involving alternate elector certificates.
• Potential legislative responses in Michigan clarifying election-related criminal statutes.