Case Summary
In People v Burkman, defendants created a robocall targeting African American voters during the 2020 election. The call falsely warned that mail‑in voting would expose voters to law‑enforcement tracking, debt collection, and forced vaccinations. Prosecutors charged them with election interference under MCL 168.932. The Court of Appeals held that the charges could proceed.
Recorded Message
“Hi, this is Tamika Taylor from Project 1599, the civil rights organization founded by Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl. Mail-in voting sounds great, but did you know that if you vote by mail your personal information will be part of a public database that will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts? The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] is even pushing to use records from mail-in voting to track people for mandatory vaccines. Don’t be finessed into giving your private information to the man. Stay safe and beware of vote by mail.”
Background
Election‑interference laws protect voters from intimidation, deception, and coercion. While political speech is broadly protected, intentionally false statements about voting procedures fall outside First Amendment protection.
Lower and Higher Court Opinions
Defendants moved to quash the charges, arguing that the robocall was protected speech. The trial court disagreed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that the statements were intentionally false, related to voting procedures, and aimed at deterring voting—placing them squarely within the statutory prohibition.
What’s at Stake
The case underscores the line between protected political messaging and criminal interference. It signals that courts will not tolerate targeted misinformation designed to suppress voting.
In Closing
People v Burkman reinforces Michigan’s commitment to safeguarding elections and clarifies that deceptive robocalls aimed at voter suppression can lead to criminal liability.
Here are some related links and articles
Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call 248-357-2550.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What made the robocall illegal?
A: Its intentionally false statements about voting procedures intended to deter voting.
Q: Was free speech a valid defense?
A: No. False statements about voting requirements are not protected.
Q: Why did the charges survive?
A: The prosecution presented evidence supporting each statutory element.
Q: Does intent matter?
A: Yes. The statements must be intentionally false and aimed at influencing voting.
Q: Who was targeted?
A: African American voters, according to the allegations.
More Articles
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)
Case Summary The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for...
Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineOverview Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress...
A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing”...
More
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Murder
Case Summary In People v Jones, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether a single act of abuse can support convictions for both first‑degree child abuse and felony murder. The defendant argued that using the same conduct to support both charges violated...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Neglect of Duty
Case Summary In People v Harper, a Wayne County Sheriff’s deputy was charged with neglect of duty after witnessing an inmate escape during his smoke break and taking no action to stop or pursue the prisoner. The prosecution relied on the Sheriff’s Department policy...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Metallic Knuckles
Case Summary In People v Dummer, the defendant challenged Michigan’s metallic‑knuckles statute, arguing that simply possessing the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment. The Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged that possession of metallic knuckles is...
Court to Allow Challenge to Michigan’s New 24% Cannabis Tax
Summary A Michigan Court of Claims judge has ruled that the lawsuit challenging the state’s newly enacted 24% wholesale marijuana excise tax may proceed. The ruling, issued January 5, 2026, keeps alive a significant constitutional challenge brought by industry groups...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Arrest
People v Lyons, No 370840, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (May 13, 2025)Case Summary In People v Lyons, the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police. Before the vehicle fully stopped, he exited and began walking away. Officers ordered him to return, he...
