fraudulent activity in order to count invalid absent voter ballots that were received after election day.
This “supplemental evidence” is inadmissible as hearsay. The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what “other hired poll workers at her table” had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay that would warrant consideration of the evidence. See MRE 801(c). The note—which is vague and equivocal—is likewise hearsay. And again, plaintiffs have not presented an argument as to why the Court could consider the same, given the general prohibitions against hearsay evidence. See Ykimoff v Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App 80, 105; 776 NW2d 114 (2009). Moreover, even overlooking the evidentiary issues, the Court notes that there are still no allegations implicating the Secretary of State’s general supervisory control over the conduct of elections. Rather, any alleged action would have been taken by some unknown individual at a polling location.
C. BALLOT BOX VIDEOS
It should be noted at the outset that the statute providing for video surveillance of drop boxes only applies to those boxes that were installed after October 1, 2020. See MCL 168.761d(2). There is no evidence in the record whether there are any boxes subject to this requirement, how many there are, or where they are. The plaintiffs have not cited any statutory authority that requires any video to be subject to review by election challengers. They have not presented this Court with any statute making the Secretary of State responsible for maintaining a database of such boxes. The clear language of the statute directs that “[t]he city or township clerk must use video monitoring of that drop box to ensure effective monitoring of that drop box.” MCL 168.761d(4)(c). Additionally, plaintiffs have not directed the Court’s attention to any authority directing the
-4-
