Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s campaign for governor is facing a serious eligibility challenge after activist Robert Davis accused the Democrat of submitting inaccurate paperwork.

Davis says Michigan law requires election officials to deny Benson a place on the general election ballot.

Davis presented his case during a Wednesday appearance with investigative reporter Charlie LeDuff on the “No BS Newshour” podcast.

His allegations focus on the affidavit of identity Benson filed while seeking to qualify as a candidate for governor.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Michigan candidates must submit affidavits confirming that required campaign statements, fees, and fines have been properly handled.

Davis contends Benson made that certification despite having outstanding late filing fees connected to her political committees.

“Jocelyn Benson should not be certified to appear on the November general election ballot as a Democratic nominee because she filed a false affidavit of identity to qualify as a candidate for governor,” Davis said.

That is not exactly a minor accusation against Michigan’s chief election official.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

According to Davis, Benson had unpaid late filing fees when she signed her affidavit.

He also claimed that a committee organized for her Secretary of State campaign had failed to pay additional late filing fees.

Davis explained the certification requirement by saying, “On that affidavit, each candidate has to attest to the fact that as of the date that they signed the affidavit,” before describing the required statements about campaign filings and payments.

His argument is that those statements must be truthful at the moment the affidavit is signed.

That timing is central to the dispute because Davis does not believe a candidate can simply clean up unpaid obligations after filing and pretend the original certification was accurate.

If his reading of the statute is correct, later payment would not erase the alleged defect.

The situation carries an extra dose of political irony because Benson serves as Michigan’s chief elections officer.

Her office is responsible for administering and enforcing the same election rules that Davis says should now block her campaign.

Davis was blunt about the remedy he believes the law demands.

“That’s just election law. That’s election law.”

He argued that Benson cannot be certified by a county clerk, city clerk, or the Secretary of State if the affidavit was false when submitted.

Davis also said the alleged filing problem could threaten Benson’s ability to remain in her current office, although that broader claim would likely trigger a separate legal fight.

LeDuff pressed the point that the paperwork issue could stand apart from any possible question involving intent or perjury.

“Just the fact that your paperwork’s not in order,” he said while discussing whether Michigan’s amended law requires disqualification regardless of what Benson knew.

WATCH:

That distinction could become crucial if election officials or a court review the matter.

A candidate might dispute knowingly making a false statement while still confronting a strict statutory penalty tied to incomplete or inaccurate paperwork.

Michigan election law has previously been applied in ways that removed candidates for paperwork problems that appeared minor to ordinary voters.

Democrats often love rigid election rules when those rules trip up somebody else, but the enthusiasm tends to evaporate when one of their own officials lands under the microscope.

Davis has reportedly filed a challenge seeking action against Benson’s candidacy.

The allegations remain claims advanced by Davis, and the final decision will depend on Michigan election officials and potentially the courts.

Still, the controversy creates an uncomfortable test for an official who has built her political profile around election administration and strict compliance.

If Michigan’s requirements mean what they say, Benson could have a difficult time explaining why her campaign deserves flexibility unavailable to lesser known candidates.

Voters will now be watching to see whether the state applies one standard to everyone or discovers another convenient exception for a powerful Democrat.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.