For more than a year, the case of People v. Scott has been framed as a test of whether a township clerk defied lawful authority. That framing no longer survives the courtroom record.
What now exists, undeniably and permanently, is sworn testimony by state and county officials admitting that they acted without legal authority, followed by a judicial dismissal of the only charge that justified a raid, a search warrant, and years of public accusation.
At this stage, the most serious question facing Hillsdale County is no longer about one township clerk.
It is about why the officials who are legally obligated to act when credible evidence of unlawful conduct is revealed have chosen not to.
The Record Is No Longer in Dispute
During the August 2025 preliminary examination in Hillsdale County 2B District Court, two facts became unavoidable.
Transcripts of a Broken Republic:
First, the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections admitted under oath that his order directing clerks statewide to delete 2020 election data was not grounded in statute, but in internal administrative policy, despite state and federal laws requiring preservation of those records.
Second, the Hillsdale County Clerk admitted under oath that he had no lawful authority to seize Adams Township voting equipment or ballots, yet did so anyway, and participated in actions that resulted in election records being deleted rather than preserved.
These were not allegations advanced by the defense. They were admissions elicited from the state’s own witnesses, preserved in transcripts, and accepted into the judicial record.
The court then dismissed Count Five, the tabulator charge, for lack of probable cause. With that dismissal, the legal foundation for the search warrant, the raid, and the public narrative collapsed.
The Tabulator That Was Never Missing
From that moment forward, the case ceased to be ambiguous.
What the Law Requires After Sworn Admissions
Michigan law does not treat sworn admissions of unlawful conduct as curiosities or abstractions. When credible evidence appears under oath, particularly evidence implicating election administration and public office, the law imposes duties on specific offices.
Those duties do not depend on politics, personalities, or preferred outcomes.
They depend on oath.
The Sheriff’s Duty
A county sheriff is not a passive observer when credible evidence of unlawful conduct comes to light.
When sworn testimony establishes potential unlawful seizure of election materials, destruction of records, or abuse of official authority, the sheriff has a duty to preserve evidence, to open an investigation, or to refer the matter to an independent authority if a conflict exists.
In this case, the sheriff had notice long before the courtroom admissions. He was contacted during the warrantless seizure. He was warned before the second raid. He was informed that election records were being taken from their lawful custodian without judicial process.
Yet even after the admissions were made under oath and the warrant collapsed, no investigation was opened, no referral was announced, and no public explanation was given.
Silence under these circumstances is not neutrality. Under the law, it may constitute neglect.
The Prosecutor’s Duty
A county prosecutor occupies a uniquely sensitive position. When credible evidence suggests that county officials may have violated the law, the prosecutor must choose one of two lawful paths.
The prosecutor may open an investigation and apply the law evenly, or the prosecutor may declare a conflict of interest and refer the matter to an outside authority.
What the prosecutor may not lawfully do is nothing.
Here, sworn testimony directly implicates actions by county officials, including unlawful seizure of election materials and participation in record deletion that state and federal law require to be preserved.
Yet there has been no public statement of investigation, no declaration of conflict, and no referral to independent authorities.
That omission now stands in stark contrast to the aggressive prosecution of a township clerk who refused to delete records and insisted on warrants before surrendering equipment.
The disparity is not theoretical. It is documented.
The Commissioners’ Duty
The Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners does not investigate crimes and does not prosecute cases. But its duties are no less real.
When sworn testimony reveals that a county office may have acted unlawfully, especially in matters affecting elections, the Board has affirmative obligations to acknowledge the matter on the public record, to ensure preservation of county records, to refer the matter to appropriate independent authorities, and to protect the County from ongoing legal exposure.
The Board is the steward of the County’s institutional integrity. It cannot ratify unlawful conduct through silence, nor can it shield county offices by refusing to acknowledge what the court record already establishes.
This is not about removal or punishment. It is about governance.
Governance begins with acknowledgment.
Why Hillsdale Conservatives Put This Before the Board
In light of what is now established in the judicial record, Hillsdale Conservatives has taken the next lawful step by formally placing the responsibility where the law says it belongs.
Two documents were submitted to the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners with a request that they be placed on the agenda of the January 13 meeting.
The first is a Formal Notice and Demand for Board Action. The second is a Proposed Resolution for recorded Board action.
These documents are not political statements. They do not accuse, prosecute, or remove anyone from office. They do not ask the Board to exceed its authority.
They do one thing the law requires. They place the Board on formal notice and require a public, recorded response to sworn testimony and judicial findings that implicate county governance and election security.
The purpose of the Demand Letter is to formally notify the Board that sworn testimony given under oath by the Hillsdale County Clerk in People v. Scott, together with the dismissal of the search warrant, now constitutes credible evidence of potential statutory and constitutional violations affecting county records and elections.
Once such notice exists, Michigan law no longer permits silence.
The letter explains that while the Board does not have prosecutorial authority and cannot unilaterally remove an independently elected official, it does have non discretionary duties, including preserving records, referring credible matters for independent review, and fulfilling its fiduciary obligation to protect the County from avoidable legal exposure.
The letter also establishes a clear and reasonable deadline for action so that any refusal or failure to act becomes documented and attributable.
The Proposed Resolution asks the Board to acknowledge the sworn testimony and judicial dismissal on the public record, to direct immediate preservation of all physical and digital election records and related communications, to formally refer the matter to appropriate independent authorities, and to conduct a recorded roll call vote so the public can see how each commissioner responded.
The resolution does not accuse anyone of a crime. It does not direct prosecution. It does not presume guilt.
It ensures that credible evidence revealed under oath is acknowledged, preserved, and referred rather than ignored.
What Happens If the Board Refuses
If the Board declines to place the matter on the agenda, refuses to adopt the resolution, or takes no action at all, the issue does not disappear.
It changes form.
At that point, the Board’s inaction itself becomes part of the public record.
Once a governing body has actual notice of sworn testimony and judicial findings that raise credible questions of unlawful conduct affecting county records and elections, continued silence is no longer neutral. It becomes a conscious choice not to act.
A refusal does not negate the sworn testimony. It does not restore the dismissed warrant. It does not erase the admissions preserved in the transcripts.
Instead, it establishes that the Board was informed, was given an opportunity to act, and chose not to acknowledge, preserve, or refer.
From that moment forward, responsibility extends beyond individual offices to the County as an institution.
Michigan law recognizes that public bodies can ratify unlawful conduct not only through affirmative acts, but through deliberate indifference. When a board charged with fiduciary responsibility declines to secure records, declines to refer credible matters, or declines even to acknowledge sworn admissions, that refusal may later be examined as ratification through inaction or failure to perform non discretionary duties.
Whether the Board acts or refuses, the record will reflect the choice.
Future reviewers will not ask what commissioners believed privately. They will look at what was done publicly when the issue was placed squarely before them.
The Question Before Hillsdale County
The real case on trial now is not People v. Scott.
It is whether the institutions of Hillsdale County will uphold their oaths when the law becomes inconvenient.
The testimony is on the record.
The warrant has been dismissed.
The admissions are sworn.
What remains to be seen is whether the sheriff, the prosecutor, and the county commissioners will do what the law requires, or whether silence will be allowed to finish what unlawful policy began.
History is already written in the transcripts.
What happens next will determine whether Hillsdale County is governed by law, or by those who believe themselves above it.
in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives
Board of Commissioner meetings will be held in person at 33 McCollum Street, Hillsdale, MI in Room 210 on the second floor. Meeting dates and times are subject to change and special meetings may be called. Voicemails can be left for the Commissioners at (517) 437-7758 Ext: 150. Next Meeting time is Jan. 13th 9am.
If you need further information or if any person needs assistance to participate in any of these meetings, please contact the Hillsdale County Clerk by the Friday before the scheduled meeting by telephone at 517-437-3391 or by mail at
Hillsdale County Clerk
Courthouse Room #1
29 N. Howell Street
Hillsdale, MI 49242
Leave a Reply to Election Case Developments Raise New Questions for Hillsdale County Leaders – Rocky Mountain Voice Cancel reply