Michigan Bill Would Fine for Election-Related Falsehoods – And Maybe Disfavored Political Speech, Too

​Following California’s lead, Michigan lawmakers are advancing legislation targeting election misinformation. It is a bill that is perhaps well-intentioned but nevertheless fatally flawed in its details. 
 
Senate Bill 707 would impose a fine of up to $1,000 on any individual who “knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation” to another regarding: the time, place, or manner of an election, the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility, criminal penalties associated with voting in an election, or an individual’s voter registration status or eligibility. Any entity or organization that employs, for an election related purpose, someone guilty of violating these provisions must prove a lack of prior knowledge or be fined up to $10,000.
 
Constitutional problems about speech abound with this one, as well as a myriad of process issues that would make enforcement difficult at best.
 
Like it or not, lies are largely constitutionally protected. To the extent they are not, legal remedies like libel and perjury already exist. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court held that even deliberate lies about the government are constitutionally protected. Even if we started punishing deliberate election-related falsehoods, questions will always persist about whether or not such falsehoods constitute jokes, parody, or satire.

Which brings us to the logistical problems at issue here. The bill defines the infraction at issue as requiring “the intent to impede or prevent another individual from exercising the individual’s right to vote in an election.” But proving intent around election adjacent representations is exceedingly difficult – and SB 707 fails to offer up a standard of proof for use in these situations (like, for example, clear and convincing evidence).
 
Moreover, the bill would put the burden of proof on the accused, hitting them with a requirement that one must prove a negative – that they had a lack of prior knowledge.
 
Precedent is all over the place on this issue. Legal scholar and PT1st Senior Advisor Eugene Volokh writes there appears be “some room” under United States v. Alvarez (2012) for narrow restrictions on lies regarding the “how, where, and when to vote.” Yet, in California, a very similar law to the one at issue here was recently enjoined by a United States federal court.
 
Another case out of Massachusetts might also provide some guidance. In Commonwealth v. Lucas (2015), the majority opinion noted that statutes punishing election-related falsehoods “may be manipulated easily into a tool for subverting its own justification, i.e., the fairness and freedom of the electoral process, through the chilling of core political speech.”
 
And therein lies our biggest concern. Even an unsuccessful case brought under this statute could still be used to throttle targeted political speech. No matter the outcome of a trial, the costs and risks of defending oneself in court is a punishment in itself.
 
We recognize the importance of protecting electoral integrity – and the increasing difficulty of doing so in this digital era. But the best, most constitutionally sound remedy against false speech is the same as the old one: counter-speech. Local authorities should always be at the ready to counter misleading statements about elections with a social media bullhorn.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS