After hearing arguments concerning the case in November of 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) supported assertions that Burkman and Wohl had utilized “corrupt means” and instructed the Court of Appeals to examine whether the pair’s actions violated state election laws.

The Michigan Supreme Court concluded in June of this year that the defendants attempted to deter Black metro Detroiters from participating in the 2020 election using the “immoral or depraved” method of spreading election misinformation, particularly for mail-in voting, using “racially based motives”.

“Defendants discussed their desire to “hi-jack this boring election” and arranged for the distribution of a robocall specifically to “black neighborhoods” with the call stating that the consequences of mail-in voting would include voter information being used by police departments to effectuate old warrants, by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts, and (potentially) by the CDC to support mandatory vaccination efforts,” the MSC wrote in its opinion in June.

In that opinion, the MSC ruled that the Court of Appeals needed to review whether Burkman and Wohl’s conduct violated Michigan law, specifically a section of election law pertaining to elector influence.

Michigan’s election laws say, “A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state.”

On Friday, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that because the calls directly pertained to misinformation about mail-in voting and promlegating false information in order to disrupt and deter Black voters in Michigan, they violate the law and Burkman and Wohl’s criminal charges stand.

“There can be no reasonable dispute that voting by mail is a voting procedure. That is, voting by mail is “a particular way of accomplishing” voting, which fits the definition of “procedure.” The robocall was related to the procedure, because it alleged that, if a voter used the voting procedure identified, certain negative events “will” occur,” Court of Appeals Judge Anica Letica wrote in the opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge James Redford argued that the robocalls did not pertain to voting requirements or procedures, but rather possible negative consequences of participating in absentee voting, so the court has not fulfilled the inquiries set out by the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold the charges.

Nessel applauded the court’s decision saying in a statement her office looks forward to the case being brought to trial.

“Voter intimidation infringes upon the fundamental right to vote,” Nessel said. “I am grateful the Court of Appeals saw this conduct for what it was—a gross misrepresentation of voting procedures meant to scare voters from participating in our elections.”