State canvassers find first Faust recall petition not factual or sufficiently clear

The Board of State Canvassers voted unanimously to determine that the reasons for recall printed on a petition filed Feb. 27, 2025 by Paul Faust against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson are not factual and not sufficiently clear, the board said at a public meeting.

Board members said the petition fails the statutory form and clarity requirements that allow the board to review a recall petition under MCL 168.951(a).

At the meeting Rowan Conybeare, an attorney with Goodman Acker representing Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, argued the petition is defective on multiple grounds. “This petition fails to meet both requirements because there's no disclaimer and the petition is handwritten,” Conybeare said. He told the board the Michigan Campaign Finance Act and the recall statute require printed petitions and factual, clear reasons for recall.

Conybeare also told the board that the alleged basis for recall — that Benson delayed investigating and resolving campaign finance complaints — did not allege conduct taken by Benson herself. He said the statutory duty cited in the petition may be performed by an agent and here complaints are handled by the Bureau of Elections, not directly by the secretary. “The statutory provision ... requires the named officer to have taken the alleged action that forms the basis for the recall petition,” Conybeare said.

Board members raised similar concerns at the dais, questioning whether the petition gives the officer and electors enough specificity to identify the transactions or complaints referenced. One board member noted the court of appeals standard requiring identifiable acts and said the petition’s general references fall short.

A motion to find the petition’s reasons not factual and not sufficiently clear was made, seconded and passed unanimously. The board did not detail further remedial action at the meeting.

The board’s decision was limited to the statutory sufficiency of the petition’s printed form and the factual/clarity standard in MCL 168.951(a); the board did not rule on any underlying campaign finance complaints, which staff said remain under investigation by other offices.