(The Center Square) – Civil fines on individuals intentionally spreading election misinformation would be imposed if proposed legislation in Michigan becomes law.
It is the latest effort by state Democrats to crack down on voter suppression.
Senate Bill 707, introduced by Sen. Mary Cavanaugh, would impose an up to $1,000 civil fine per violation on anyone intentionally making a false statement or “misrepresentation” to another person about an election.
The false statement or misrepresentation could concern the time, place, or “manner” of an election, the qualifications or restrictions on voter eligibility, criminal penalties associated with voting in an election, or an individual’s voter registration status or eligibility.
Cavanaugh testified Wednesday before the Senate Elections and Ethics Committee, which voted in favor of the bill, arguing the state’s election laws are “ill-equipped to address modern disinformation,” which the bill seeks to address.
“This legislation before you today, it protects and strengthens our election process,” Cavanaugh said. “No one should make their plan to vote in fear that information about the election date, time, location, or voter eligibility is incorrect. In recent years, voters have faced disinformation campaigns in the form of robocalls, letters, and posted signage giving incorrect information about elections, mail-in voting, or voter eligibility such as criminal record and right to vote.”
The bill specifies that for a false statementment or misrepresentation to be intentionally made, the individual must know the statement is false and make it with the intent to impede or prevent someone from exercising voting rights in an election. Michigan’s attorney general would be in charge of enforcing the penalty and confirming proof of intent.
Additionally, any organization that employed such an individual for an election-related purpose would be subject to a maximum civil fine of $10,000.
State Sens. Ruth Johnson, R-Holly, and Ed McBroom, R-Waucedah Township, expressed concerns on how a court would determine whether untrue statements were made with deceptive intent.
“I don’t want somebody to lose their First Amendment rights,” Johnson said. “Yes, the concept is right, but I think unintended consequences can happen – I’ve seen so many of them – and I think we just want to be sure exactly what it is.”
