The Michigan cases have become a new flashpoint in the national argument over election security. But the state’s review also included closed referrals, unresolved matters and allegations that have yet to be tested in court.
Speaker Mike Johnson criticized Democrats after Michigan authorities charged five alleged noncitizens in a voting-related case tied largely to the 2024 election. Michigan’s attorney general announced six criminal cases in all, and Johnson is using the Michigan charges to argue that Democrats have not done enough to protect election integrity.
The cases carry serious allegations, but they are not convictions. Michigan’s own review also found referrals involving people who were U.S. citizens, inquiries closed without charges and 22 matters that remained under review.
Six cases became a political flashpoint
Johnson’s criticism fits a longstanding Republican argument: that Democratic policies intended to make voter registration and voting more accessible can create openings for ineligible voting. The Michigan cases supplied a specific set of allegations for that argument.
Michigan officials describe the same events differently. Their position is that election safeguards worked: suspicious activity was identified, referrals were investigated, and voter registrations connected to the charged cases were canceled when warranted.
That leaves the political dispute centered on two competing interpretations. Johnson treats the prosecutions as evidence of a failure by Democrats, while state officials can point to the investigation and charges as evidence that the system can detect and address suspected violations.
What the attorney general reviewed
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office said the charges followed referrals from the Michigan Secretary of State involving suspected noncitizen voting and related conduct. The referrals were tied to the November 2024 general election, as well as conduct alleged in other elections and years.
The office said it reviewed about 16 referrals from 2025 connected to the 2024 general election. It also examined 22 additional suspected noncitizen-voting or related matters from elections held between 2009 and 2025.
- 38 matters were reviewed in total.
- Six resulted in charges.
- 10 were closed without charges.
- 22 remained under review.
Five charged cases involved people prosecutors identified as noncitizens, according to CBS Detroit’s account of the announcement. The sixth involved a U.S. citizen accused of registering her lawful-permanent-resident husband online while falsely claiming he was a citizen.
The allegations are not one scheme
The six cases do not describe a single coordinated operation. The accusations range from allegedly false registration information and attempted voting to questions involving absentee-ballot paperwork, alleged election forgery and use of a computer to commit a crime.
Michael Akioya, a lawful permanent resident, was charged with misdemeanor false-statement counts involving an absent-voter ballot application and ballot-return envelope in 2025. Alondra Harker, identified by the state as a noncitizen limited-term resident, was charged with fraudulent voter registration.
Harumi Michael, identified as a lawful permanent resident, faces charges that include election-law forgery, attempting to vote as an unqualified elector and making a false voter-registration statement. Basanth Sadasivian, whom prosecutors said was living in the United Kingdom, was charged with attempting to vote as an unqualified elector through a federal absentee-voting application process.
Robert Piva was charged with perjury, attempting to vote as an unqualified elector and fraudulent registration. Prosecutors said he described his actions as an experiment concerning voter fraud. Kimberley DiDonato, an American citizen, was charged with election forgery and using a computer to commit a crime; prosecutors allege that she registered her noncitizen husband and said she was testing the online system.
Why intent is central
Only U.S. citizens may vote in federal elections, and states generally require people registering to affirm under penalty of law that they are citizens and otherwise eligible. A false citizenship claim on voting paperwork can bring criminal penalties and, for noncitizens, potentially serious immigration consequences.
But the legal issue is not limited to whether a registration or vote occurred. Prosecutors must prove the elements of each particular charge, including whether a defendant was ineligible and knowingly violated election law.
Michigan’s review illustrates why that distinction matters. The attorney general’s office said two referrals involved people who turned out to be U.S. citizens. One concerned a complicated international adoption, and another involved a member of a federally recognized American Indian community born in Canada whose documentation used dual-citizenship language.
Six additional inquiries were closed because prosecutors said they could not prove that the people knew or believed they were unable to vote. Those outcomes do not resolve the six charged cases, but they show that a referral alone does not establish criminal wrongdoing.
The courts now decide the cases
Charges are allegations, not findings of guilt. Each defendant can contest the accusations, and the available reporting does not establish the ultimate outcome of any case.
The cases are pending in district courts across Michigan, including Oakland, St. Joseph and Macomb counties. Prosecutors will need to present evidence for each charge, while defense lawyers may dispute both the facts and the state’s interpretation of election law.
The 22 remaining matters may produce further charges, be closed without action, or reveal administrative mistakes rather than criminal conduct. The record provided by the attorney general’s office does not yet answer which path those inquiries will take.
What Michigan’s numbers do—and do not—show
Six charges from 38 reviewed matters do not establish how widespread noncitizen voting may be across Michigan. They also do not mean every referral was substantiated. Still, the cases show that suspected violations can lead to lengthy investigations and criminal prosecution.
Johnson’s response is likely to keep the cases in the broader partisan debate over tighter election rules. Democrats and Michigan election officials are likely to stress the referrals, investigations and prosecutions as evidence that enforcement mechanisms are functioning.
The narrower conclusion is the one the pending court process will test: Michigan has alleged unlawful election-related conduct in six cases, including five involving people described by prosecutors as noncitizens. The legal outcomes, rather than the political reaction, will determine what occurred in each case.
Leave a Reply