The recent developments in the case of Michigan attorneys Matt DePerno and Stefanie Lambert signal a troubling trajectory in the intersection of law and political interests. As the clock ticks toward the five-year mark of the 2020 election, the Oakland County Circuit Court’s decision raises serious concerns about fairness and due process.
Judge Jeffrey Matis denied all fifteen requests from the defense, a move that steers the case heavily in favor of the prosecution. Key elements of the court’s order reveal a pattern of obfuscation regarding the legal requirements for using voting equipment. For example, the court introduced a new jury instruction mandating that defendants must have had “authorization by the Secretary of State” before examining election equipment—a requirement that does not exist in Michigan’s election statutes.
This alteration creates a precarious precedent; it retroactively establishes a legal barrier that no one was previously aware of, undermining the integrity of the legal proceedings. The center of this controversy pertains to access, or lack thereof, given to legal representatives concerning election system examinations within the framework of political opposition.
During the Antrim County litigation, it is noteworthy that the Michigan Secretary of State was a direct adversary opposing the discovery of evidence. Asking for her “permission” to examine voting machines made no sense, particularly since she was actively working to suppress data that might have revealed significant irregularities. Documentation from December 2020 confirms that no authorization rule existed at that time, illuminating the convoluted attempts to reinterpret legal boundaries following adverse findings from forensic examinations.
Moreover, the expert affidavits presented in court by attorneys Lambert and DePerno were clear and compelling. Ben Cotton, the founder of CyFIR and CyTech, provided sworn testimony about alarming vulnerabilities in Antrim County’s 2020 election systems. His reports indicated unauthorized access and irregularities that called into question the integrity of the electoral process. For instance, evidence shows that the voting equipment was connected to foreign IP addresses, and critical security weaknesses were present, including outdated software and shared passwords.
Despite this documented evidence contributing to the public docket, which is an integral part of lawful advocacy, the state has chosen to target these findings as potential grounds for prosecution. The term “Arctic Frost” reflects this troubling phenomenon, wherein professionals who conducted lawful defense work find themselves in the crosshairs of governmental scrutiny. It raises a critical question: why should experts face repercussions for revealing vulnerabilities in election systems?
The introduction of a new “SOS Permission” theory that requires prior approval from the Secretary of State before analyzing voting equipment dramatically shifts the framework of advocacy. This not only penalizes legal representatives for fulfilling their obligations but also risks criminalizing the routine steps taken in civil litigation. If an attorney’s ability to challenge the status quo is contingent upon political permission, then the essence of due process becomes compromised.
What unfolds in the coming months will be critical. The upcoming trial on March 2, 2026, along with the deadlines for exhibit submissions set forth by the court, reflects a judiciary wrestling with its role in politically sensitive cases. Should juries be burdened with instructions introduced after the fact, particularly when they involve permissions from political adversaries? The principles of a fair trial and attorney-client privilege must remain safeguarded against shifting legal standards.
The ramifications of this scenario are profound. If courts can add retroactive requirements based on political winds, the chilling effect on advocacy will only grow. It sends a clear message to future litigants: the willingness to present inconvenient truths may come at a steep cost. In this complex legal battle, DePerno and Lambert are fighting for the right not only to present evidence but also to uphold the integrity of the legal process itself. The upcoming proceedings will be a litmus test for the balance of power between state authority and the pursuit of justice in the realm of electoral integrity.
"*" indicates required fields
