A former head of the Federal Elections Commission says an academic study on elections that recently made national news is “absurd” and subjective.

The study ranked Michigan’s elections as less democratic than those of Cuba, Iran and North Korea. It reports the perceptions of 726 election experts about the electoral integrity — or how ethical the democratic process is — in each state. Michigan is one of several states that is ranked lower than some authoritarian countries.

Michigan’s Perception of Electoral Integrity index score, which the project complied by using survey methods and 49 measurements, was 57 out of 100. The Great Lakes State was ranked ahead of ten other states, including Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

A 2014 study by the project used the same scoring criteria to rank countries by evaluating their presidential and parliamentary elections. Some of the countries that ranked higher than Michigan were Iran (64), Cuba (66), and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (65). Venezuela’s had an index score of 57, tying Michigan.

Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University and an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said the study is “absurd” and not based on objective criteria.

“Isn't a study that ranks Cuba, North Korean and Iran higher on a democracy list than half of the United States — from conservative Georgia to liberal New York, from tiny Rhode Island to giant Texas, self-evidently absurd?” said Smith, a former chairman of the FEC who now specializes in election law and campaign finance. “That should be enough to dismiss this silly study.”

The study made national news in December after an op-ed was published in the Raleigh News & Observer highlighting a claim that North Carolina is no longer democratic.

Andrew Reynolds, the author of the op-ed, helped establish the system used by the Electoral Integrity Project.

“If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table – a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world,” Reynolds wrote.

Reynolds then explained North Carolina “can no longer be classified as a full democracy” because of the GOP’s legislative dominance, the limitation of transgender rights in the state, and the government’s detachment “from popular will.”

Smith responded by saying, “The rankings are based not on objective criteria, but on a poll of ‘social scientists,’ ‘who ha[ve] demonstrated knowledge of the electoral process in a particular country.’ One can meet this vague criteria merely through ‘membership of a relevant research group or network, or university employment.’” He added, “In other words, it's not necessary that the ‘experts’ have actually done research in the field, if they are employed by a university or join the right group.”

Smith also said the study’s sample sizes are “ridiculously small in most cases” and can be easily swayed by biased respondents. “For example, Cuba's ranking is based on 3 responses; North Korea's on two; even the 2014 U.S. elections were scored by just 8 people,” he said. “Nor should we assume that these ‘experts’ in repressive countries felt free of pressure on how to respond.”

“The criteria is subjective, and often ideological highly contested — for example, U.S. scores were lowered in the latest survey because of recent deregulation of the campaign finance in the United States — even though those who have argued for such deregulation believe it is a huge plus for democracy,” Smith continued.

Smith also pointed out that Brazil, Tunisia, Turkey, Rwanda, Georgia (the former Soviet Republic), Bhutan and Serbia outscored a one-fourth or more of U.S. states.

“This ‘study’ is not only not worth the paper it is printed on, it should irritate honest election specialists because it is the type of bogus study that makes people skeptical of ‘experts’ who purport to know what is best for them,” he said. “Is there a person in the state of Michigan who really believes that Cuba and Iran are more democratic than Michigan? I didn’t think so either.”

Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation Jan. 3 that bans a cash bond requirement in civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal proceeding that allows police and prosecutors to keep and sell seized property, in many cases even if the owner is never convicted or even charged with a crime.

The new law builds on 2015 reforms to Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture. Rep. Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Twp, first introduced House Bill 4629, now Public Act 418 of 2016, in May 2015.

The law lifts a requirement that a person whose property is seized as part of civil asset forfeiture pay a cash bond in order to challenge the seizure. Michigan law had allowed law enforcement to keep cash bonds, typically 10 percent of the value of property estimated to be worth $250 to $5,000.

Lucido said he is pleased the bill was signed into law but added that further reforms are needed.

“It’s an absolute great step in the right direction,” said Lucido, who’s also a criminal defense attorney. “But it’s not complete yet.”

In 2015, Snyder signed a package of seven bills into law that requires law enforcement to disclose civil asset forfeitures and do a better job of documenting seizures. The burden of proof for forfeitures was also raised from “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”

“The repeal of the bond requirement is great news,” said Kahryn Riley, a criminal justice policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “It means that citizens will no longer be denied the ability to go to court and dispute private property seizures just because they cannot afford a bond payment. That's a win for due process in Michigan.”

But she added that the repeal is merely one step in the right direction.

“The Michigan Legislature should eliminate the civil asset forfeiture scheme altogether," Riley said. "Our laws still allow law enforcement agencies to profit from seized assets, which can be problematic.”

While Lucido believes forfeiture has its uses, he said a bill is in the works that would require a conviction before property can be taken using forfeiture.

“We need to have civil asset forfeiture because we do not want criminals that are convicted to be profiting from criminal activity,” he said, adding that due process needs to run its course before someone’s property can be taken through forfeiture. “Civil asset forfeiture should not be repealed in its entirety but it should be modified for the best interest of due process.”

Lucido said one solution might be an injunctive order, which would allow an “impartial, detached, third party” judge to determine if someone's property can be “sold, concealed, removed, disposed, or transferred” before a seizure, similar to a search warrant.

The upcoming bill, which Lucido said is nearly ready for consideration, will likely have the injunctive order clause added as an amendment after testimony. Law enforcement in Michigan has forfeited at least $270 million in assets related to drug crimes since 2001, but it’s unclear how much has been taken in total since state law previously did not require law enforcement to fully report information on forfeitures.

Michigan received a grade of D- for its civil asset forfeiture laws in a 2015 study by the Institute for Justice.

Michigan Capitol Confidential previously reported about a lawsuit involving a Shiawassee County couple who had their vintage car — along with thousands of dollars worth of other property — seized and later sold by the Saginaw Township Sheriff Department. The sale came about even though the two were never convicted of a crime and a court of appeals had ordered the property be returned to them.

Documents show the car, a 1965 Chevy Nova, had 56,000 miles added to the odometer during the time it was held by the department. The department sold the car for $1,500.