Michigan Legacy PAC – $82,500 Contribution From Defendant Benson’s Political Apparatus to Justice Kyra Harris Bolden’s Campaign During Pendency of O’Halloran v. Benson (MI)

[Established Fact – As to the $82,500 contribution, the pending litigation, the August 2024 ruling, and the filing of grievances] Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s political fundraising entity, “Michigan Legacy PAC,” made a $82,500 contribution to the campaign of Michigan Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris Bolden in April 2024. At the time the contribution was made, Secretary Benson was an active defendant in O’Halloran v. Benson, a case pending before the Michigan Supreme Court in which the central legal question was the validity of Benson’s directives to county election inspectors regarding the treatment of election poll challengers. These directives had been the subject of significant controversy, with lower courts issuing rulings both for and against Benson’s position at the trial and appellate levels. In August 2024 – approximately four months after the $82,500 contribution was received – Justice Bolden authored the 5-2 majority opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court that overturned those lower court decisions and ruled in favor of Secretary Benson, the defendant who had contributed $82,500 to Justice Bolden’s campaign while the case was pending. A formal grievance was filed with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission alleging that the contribution constituted a bribe or a severe ethical violation by Secretary Benson. A separate grievance was filed against Justice Bolden for failing to recuse herself from a case in which a party to the litigation had made a substantial financial contribution to her campaign during the pendency of that litigation. The Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. standard – under which due process requires recusal when a significant financial contribution from a litigant creates a “serious risk of actual bias” – is directly applicable: the $82,500 contribution, made by an active defendant while the case was under consideration, and followed four months later by a majority opinion authored by the recipient in favor of the contributing defendant, presents precisely the factual pattern the Caperton Court identified as constitutionally problematic. Justice Bolden did not recuse herself.