FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the appeal of Clifford James Frost Jr., a former Republican elector candidate accused in the Michigan Fake Elector Case of attempting to submit false electoral votes after the 2020 presidential election.

Frost had petitioned the court to overturn a Sixth Circuit decision affirming that federal courts should not intervene in his ongoing state prosecution. The appellate panel applied the Younger v. Harris doctrine, which limits federal interference in state criminal matters, ruling that Frost’s prosecution did not appear to be brought in bad faith.

Frost’s Challenge and Federal Court Ruling

In his petition, Frost argued that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s prosecution was politically driven and lacked factual basis, claiming he would suffer “irreparable harm” if the state proceeded. He maintained that prosecutors had “no reasonable expectation” of obtaining a conviction.

However, both the federal district court and the Sixth Circuit disagreed. The appellate panel concluded that Frost could raise his constitutional claims within the state judicial process and emphasized that federal courts could not preemptively second-guess the legitimacy of state criminal proceedings.

The panel stated:

“Such a result is untenable in our dual state-federal criminal justice system. It is for Michigan courts in the first instance to correct any misapplication of state criminal laws.”

Charges and State Court Developments

Frost, now 78, was one of 16 Michigan Republicans charged in July 2023 with conspiracy and election forgery-related offenses. Prosecutors alleged the group attempted to pose as legitimate electors by signing and submitting a fraudulent “Certificate of The Votes of The 2020 Electors From Michigan,” falsely asserting Donald Trump had won the state.

In September, a Michigan state court dismissed the charges, with Judge Kristen D. Simmons ruling that the alleged fake electors believed they were engaged in a legitimate legal process to preserve Trump’s rights pending legal challenges.

Election Day Actions and Political Implications

The controversy stems from December 14, 2020, when the Democratic electors cast Michigan’s 16 votes for President Joe Biden, who won by approximately 150,000 votes. Frost and the other Republican nominees were reportedly barred from the state capitol by Michigan State Police. Instead, they met at the Michigan GOP headquarters in Lansing, where they signed and submitted the false certificates to Congress.

Frost’s attorneys, Edward F. Kickham III and Kevin D. Kijewski, argue that the case exemplifies overreach by the attorney general’s office and was “motivated by politics rather than law.”
Attorney General Nessel, represented by Ann Maurine Sherman, has not filed a response to the Supreme Court petition.

A Broader Legal and Political Ripple

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay out of the dispute effectively leaves Frost’s challenge to be handled by Michigan courts, reinforcing the separation between state and federal judicial authority.
The case remains a vivid reminder of the lingering legal and political aftershocks of the 2020 election, as debates over election legitimacy and prosecutorial discretion continue to shape the American legal landscape.