Nessel announces she won’t appeal alleged ‘false electors’ case

SHELBY TOWNSHIP — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has confirmed her office will not appeal a judge’s September decision to dismiss charges against 15 residents, including Shelby Township Clerk Stanley Grot, whom Nessel accused of attempting to falsely certify Donald Trump as the state’s winner of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Following the court’s Sept. 9, 2025, ruling, the Michigan Department of Attorney General had a 21-day window to pursue an appeal, and until March 9, 2026, to file an application for leave to appeal, if it chose to pursue an appeal of the ruling.

Nessel said her office “did not reach this decision lightly.”

“After a thorough assessment of the resources and time required to pursue justice in these cases, the pace and difficulty with which various courts have dealt with criminal violations of election law, and our likelihood of success given stringent appellate review standards, I have decided not to pursue an appeal,” Nessel said in prepared statement. “This decision does not reflect any change in my belief in each defendant’s culpability for their alleged crimes, nor do I feel it any less urgent that those who work to undermine our elections should face accountability.”

According to a March 12 press release from the Michigan Conservative Coalition, the former defendants, identifying themselves as “alternate electors,” have filed a notice of intent to sue the attorney general, the Department of Attorney General, and its officials and employees, saying the felony charges against them were filed with malicious intent.

Nessel, a Democrat, brought the case against the 16 people originally indicted in July 2023.

Her department alleged that the defendants knowingly signed and submitted forged Electoral College certificates falsely stating Donald Trump had won the presidential election in the state.

Nessel argued that the defendants “falsely claimed” three things.

“One, that they were the duly elected and qualified electors for the state of Michigan. Two, that they convened and organized in the Michigan State Capitol. And three, that Donald J. Trump had won Michigan’s popular vote,” she said.

The defendants each faced eight charges, including forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery.

After entering into a cooperating agreement with Nessel, the charges were dropped against one of the defendants, James Renner. The other 15 defendants pleaded not guilty.

During the September hearing in Ingham County’s 54-A District Court, Judge Kristen D.Simmons said she saw no intent to commit fraud in the defendants’ actions.

In an interview following the decision, Grot said he was “heartened” that Simmons “concluded what I have been saying throughout this case — I did nothing wrong.”

“The past two and a half years have been hell for me. This ordeal has cost me money, has caused me worry and anxiety, and has affected my family, who stood by me throughout this entire process,” Grot said in a prepared statement. “I thank God for His grace during this trying time and appreciate the attention and courtesy Judge Simmons gave to this case.”

Grot’s attorney, Derek S. Wilczynski, said the case “never should have been filed or pursued” by the attorney general.

Grot said April 20 that it’s a class action suit so all the former defendants, including himself, are part of the suit to sue the attorney general.

“We are vindicated, but because of the damage that was done to many of the other electors, and because some of them hired big firms and it cost them a lot of money, they thought (we should sue the attorney general),” Grot said.

Minnesota lawyer Erick Kaardal, who is representing electors in the litigation against Nessel, said the suit would be “vigorously pursued.”

“Government officials who weaponize their offices against citizens for political purposes must be held accountable under the law,” Kaardal said in a prepared statement.

Kimberly Bush, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Attorney General, said the “cases will not be successful, but it’s possible the proceedings will shed further light on the criminal conduct of the plaintiffs.” She said that the department released “an exhaustive 110 page report that included the allegations against each defendant, the supporting evidence presented before the court, and the