The McCotter / Election Petition Controversy: What it Reveals About Michigan Conspiracy Law
Introduction
The “McCotter case” (involving election petition signatures and how Michigan handles conspiracies to commit legal acts in an illegal manner) is complex, but it provides a compelling illustration of how Michigan criminal law draws distinctions between lawful objectives and unlawful means. For attorneys and public figures alike, it shows the dangers of overreaching charges and the importance of statutory clarity.
Background & Legal Context
The term “McCotter case” in Michigan often refers to controversies around U.S. Representative Thaddeus McCotter’s placement on election ballots and related signature irregularities. Michigan election law demands valid, properly circulated petition signatures to qualify a candidate for the ballot (source).
Under Michigan’s conspiracy statute, there is a distinction between two types of conspiracy:
- Conspiracy to commit an offense prohibited by law (a standard conspiracy)
- Conspiracy to commit a legal act in an illegal manner (a more peculiar species) — i.e. conspiring to do something lawful (like submitting a petition) but by unlawful means.
In the McCotter context, prosecutors tried to frame the case under MCL 750.157a(d) (the felony conspiracy provision) by positing that the ultimate goal — placing McCotter’s name on the ballot — was a lawful act, but that the means (falsely signing circulator names / improper signatures) were illegal.
Defendants challenged that theory, asserting that the signing and submission of invalid signatures are inherently illegal—not a lawful goal corrupted by illegal method. Thus, it should be charged under the standard conspiracy statute (a misdemeanor), not under the felony provision.
Case Developments & Court Reasoning
At various levels of litigation, courts have scrutinized whether the conduct was properly categorized. In People v. Seewald (a related case in the McCotter controversy), dissenting opinions argued that the defendants’ ultimate objective — ballot placement — was lawful, and thus the felony conspiracy statute was proper (source). But majority rulings questioned whether that framing mischaracterizes how election statutes treat invalid petition signatures (i.e. invalid signatures may render the act unlawful at its core) (source).
Michigan’s Supreme Court also recognized that McCotter’s petition process required a certain number of valid signatures to be certified — and that invalid signatures do not count under the law (source).
Thus, key legal questions include:
- Was the defendants’ aim (getting McCotter on the ballot) truly a legal act?
- Or were their means (falsely signing circulator names or submitting invalid signatures) intrinsically illegal from the start?
- Is the felony conspiracy statute properly applied when the “legal” act is effectively transformed by illegality due to the means?
Some courts found that because the signatures were invalid or improperly circulated, the act was not truly lawful at the start, undermining the logic of counting it as a “legal act done illegally”(source).
Significance & Takeaways
- Statutory nuance matters: The difference between misdemeanor and felony conspiracy can hinge on fine grammatical and legal distinctions about what constitutes a “legal act.”
- Election law is a minefield: For candidates, staffers, or petition circulators, understanding the strict requirements for signatures and circulator certification is essential to avoid legal exposure.
- Defense strategy is critical: A strong defense may challenge whether the goal was truly lawful at all, rather than simply attacking the means.
Conclusion
The McCotter-related litigation illustrates how Michigan’s criminal code can be stretched and contested, especially around conspiracy charges tied to public processes. For anyone involved in petition collection or political campaigns, navigating both election statutes and criminal conspiracy law requires precision. If you’re confronting similar charges, you need counsel who understands how the courts parse “legal acts in illegal manner” theories.