Source guide

DOJ Election-Crimes Concurrence and Database Review of Muskegon Voter Registrations

A February 2023 DOJ email conveys Public Integrity Section concurrence for a limited grand-jury investigation and includes results from database checks of 20 Muskegon voter-registration applications.

Open full source PDF ↗ 2 pages Embedded source text
01

Scope of investigative concurrence

The DOJ Public Integrity Section's Election Crimes Branch concurred in a full grand-jury investigation of the alleged registration-fraud matter, but only for applications whose purported applicants appeared nonexistent or fabricated, or whose signatures were the same or substantially similar across applications.

“PIN concurs in the full GJ investigation into the alleged voter registration fraud matter”
DOJ email body
Source: page 1 ↗
“the purported applicant does not exist and/or appears to be fabricated”
DOJ email body
Source: page 1 ↗
“signatures of the purported applicants are the same or substantially similar to signatures on other applications”
DOJ email body
Source: page 1 ↗
02

Express exclusions and consultation requirements

The concurrence excluded applications using real people's names when each application bore a unique signature. The email also directed consultation before pursuing charges or where venue was lacking, and barred a federal public statement without consultation with PIN.

“This concurrence does not extend to applications featuring the names of actual persons in which the application includes a unique signature.”
DOJ email body
Source: page 1 ↗
“No federal public statement should be made about this matter without conferring with PIN.”
DOJ email body
Source: page 1 ↗
03

Database-check methodology

The appended investigative summary says database checks were completed on 20 randomly selected applications whose handwriting appeared different from applications the Muskegon Clerk had identified as potentially fraudulent. The checks compared names and multiple identifiers and contact fields against available databases.

“20 randomly selected voter registration applications with apparently different handwriting”
Appended database-check summary
Source: page 1 ↗
“We compared the names, last four of SS#, MI DL number, DOB, gender, address, and phone number”
Appended database-check summary
Source: page 1 ↗
04

Results of the 20-application review

The summary classified seven applications as completely fabricated and seven as containing all or nearly all correct information. The remaining six reflected various mismatches: four used real names but had mismatched key identifiers, one had a middle-name discrepancy, and one concerned a real person who did not appear to have lived in Muskegon and had a fabricated address.

“seven of the applications contain completely fabricated information.”
Database-check findings
Source: page 2 ↗
“four of the applications contain a real name, but DOB, driver's license, and/or SS# don't match.”
Database-check findings
Source: page 2 ↗
“one of the applications contain a real name, but middle name doesn't match.”
Database-check findings
Source: page 2 ↗
“one of the applications is for someone who does not appear to have ever lived in Muskegon and has a fabricated address.”
Database-check findings
Source: page 2 ↗
“seven of the applications contain all correct or nearly all correct information.”
Database-check findings
Source: page 2 ↗