Felony Case Against Michigan Township Clerk Collapses After Judge Finds Prior Ruling Was "Error of Law"

By Kristine Christlieb, MFEI News & Commentary Editor

April 30, 2026

A Hillsdale County circuit court judge dismissed all felony charges against former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott on Thursday, ruling the statute at the heart of the case never said what prosecutors claimed it did and the district court judge who bound the case over for trial made an error of law.

For Stephanie Scott, Thursday's ruling was five years in the making. Since 2021, the former township clerk has been stripped of her duties, recalled by voters, defeated in a bid for county clerk, and forced to defend herself against felony charges carrying potential decades in prison — all for actions a Hillsdale Circuit Court judge has ruled were never criminal in the first place.

According to Michigan News Source reporting, Scott's legal team sees the ruling as "a complete vindication."

Circuit Court Judge Sara S. Lisznyai granted Scott's Motion to Quash Bindover on April 30, dismissing all four felony counts. Attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila, who had been charged alongside Scott, also had all three of her felony counts dismissed. A single misdemeanor count against Scott — alleging she disobeyed a directive from the Secretary of State — was remanded back to district court.

The Error of Law

The case against Scott, brought by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office in May 2024, claimed Scott illegally shared confidential voter data when she allowed cybersecurity expert Benjamin Cotton to examine Adams Township's 2020 election records. Prosecutors argued MCL 168.509gg(1) — a provision of Michigan election law governing voter registration records — imposed a confidentiality requirement that Scott violated.

Judge Lisznyai rejected that interpretation.

In her order, Lisznyai walked through the statute's plain language section by section, noting that MCL 168.509gg(1) addresses what information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act — nothing more. Unlike subsections (2) and (3) of the same statute, which include explicit language prohibiting use of information "for any other purpose" or designating records as "confidential," subsection (1) contains no such restriction.

"No additional requirement for nondisclosure or confidentiality is stated and none is found," Lisznyai wrote. The court further noted that when the Legislature intends to impose a confidentiality requirement, it says so — as it did in the neighboring subsections. It did not do so in subsection (1).

Because there was no confidentiality requirement, there was no unauthorized access. Because there was no unauthorized access, the conspiracy charge had no predicate. All three computer-related felony counts fell.

Lisznyai was explicit: the Hillsdale District Court, which had bound the case over for trial in November 2025, had made "an error of law and by definition abused its discretion."

A District Court Judge Who Got It Wrong

The district court judge who sent Scott's case to trial was Judge Megan Stiverson — the same judge who, years earlier, signed the search warrant Michigan State Police used to seize Scott's voting equipment.

Even though Stiverson's husband works in the Hillsdale County Sheriffi's Office, the county law enforcement agency connected to the investigation, she did not recuse herself from the case. She presided over the preliminary examination, rejected motions to dismiss the charges, found probable cause on seven of the eight counts, and bound the case over to circuit court — where her legal analysis was ultimately ruled an error.

The same judge who approved the warrant authorizing police to seize Scott's property later presided over the hearing to determine whether Scott should stand trial and was ultimately overruled on the core legal question by a higher court.

Benson's Overreach: Using the Case to Rewrite the Rulebook

The prosecution of Stephanie Scott is part of Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's years-long effort to consolidate control over Michigan's locally elected township clerks — an effort that Scott's defiance made especially pointed.

When Scott refused to delete 2020 election data after seven days as the Bureau ordered, she cited state and federal law requiring records to be preserved for up to 22 months. When she refused to turn over voting tabulators for routine vendor maintenance without a warrant, she cited her duty to protect the integrity of election equipment in her custody.

The Bureau responded by stripping Scott of her election administration authority. Then came the prosecution.

Patrice Johnson, founder and chair of Michigan Fair Elections Institute, has argued that Scott's case is directly connected to the wave of new rulemaking Benson pushed through the legislature — regulations specifically crafted to give the Bureau of Elections new authority to remove and override clerks who refuse to comply with state directives.

"It is likely Scott's case is partly responsible for the barrage of new rules Benson pushed through the legislature," Johnson has said, "rules — with the force of law — that she will use to oust clerks who try to fulfill their constitutional duty."

In other words: prosecute the clerk who pushes back, then use the prosecution as justification to write new rules ensuring no clerk can push back again.

The Human Cost

The legal vindication, while decisive, cannot undo what Stephanie Scott lost.

She was removed from her elected position in 2021, before voters ever had a chance to weigh in. In 2023, they recalled her from office. She ran for Hillsdale County Clerk in 2024 and lost, her prospects clouded by pending felony charges. For years, she carried the weight of accusations that she was a criminal, that she had deliberately violated the law, compromised voter privacy, and abused her office.

None of that was true, a circuit court judge has now confirmed.

What is no longer in question is this: Stephanie Scott broke no felony law. She did her job. And she paid dearly for it.