Punching bags hanging inside Hamtramck’s city clerk’s office — one with mayoral candidate Muhith Mahmood’s face taped to it — helped set off a chain of events thatPunching bags hanging inside Hamtramck’s city clerk’s office — one with mayoral candidate Muhith Mahmood’s face taped to it — helped set off a chain of events that

Candidates’ faces on punching bags linked to 37 uncounted ballots in Michigan

2026/03/11 18:42
5 min di lettura
Per feedback o dubbi su questo contenuto, contattateci all'indirizzo crypto.news@mexc.com.

Punching bags hanging inside Hamtramck’s city clerk’s office — one with mayoral candidate Muhith Mahmood’s face taped to it — helped set off a chain of events that left 37 ballots uncounted in the city’s Nov. 5 mayoral election, a race Mahmood lost by just 11 votes.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

Mahmood, a former city council member, told Votebeat the episode has left him and his supporters questioning the outcome. “We all talk about transparency,” he said. “This is not a good example.”

Mayor Adam Alharbi, who defeated Mahmood in the race for mayor and was sworn in in January, confirmed Tuesday that the punching bags were one reason interim City Manager Alexander Lagrou and a number of other unauthorized city officials entered the clerk’s office after the polls closed on Election Day. Aside from Mahmood, the image of a City Council candidate whose name is not yet public was also featured on the bags.

Inside the office were 37 uncounted absentee ballots. Officials’ entry broke the chain of custody, and canvassers ultimately chose not to count them as a result. Though those ballots could have changed the outcome of the narrowly decided race, they were not part of the count — including the recount requested by Mahmood, which slightly increased Alharbi’s margin of victory from 6 to 11 votes.

The fallout has upended Hamtramck City Hall. Former City Clerk Rana Faraj’s firing was reported Tuesday by The Detroit News, with officials citing the punching bags and the handling of the ballots as reasons for her dismissal. Meanwhile, Mahmood has appealed a judge’s decision allowing the ballots to remain excluded, leaving the legitimacy of the razor-thin result under continued scrutiny.

That December ruling said that canvassers had the authority to leave the 37 ballots out of the final count. The case now sits before the Michigan Court of Appeals.

No one knows who cast those ballots or who they were for. Months after Alharbi was sworn in as the city’s new mayor, Mahmood and his supporters still harbor doubts.

“Whoever they voted for, that should be in the count,” Mahmood said.

Alharbi maintains that the 37 ballots “came after the election” and should not have been counted to begin with. He has referred to them in the past as “fraudulent,” a characterization disputed by other officials and Mahmood’s lawyers.

Alharbi told Votebeat the decision to fire Faraj was tied in part to what he called “a clear lack of professional neutrality in office” as well as procedural errors relating to elections.

Faraj was placed on paid leave shortly after the November election. In December, she filed a lawsuit alleging that several city officials were retaliating against her for trying to flag “ongoing election integrity issues” in the city.

An attorney representing Faraj did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

How did Hamtramck get here?

Faraj has said that her staff noticed the discrepancy between the number of ballots received and those tabulated on election night. The missing 37 ballots, Deputy Clerk Abe Siblani told Votebeat in November, were the result of “human error at the counting board” where ballots are supposed to be fed into the tabulator.

In her lawsuit, Faraj suggested the problem occurred after workers cut the ballot envelopes open but then mistakenly mixed them with empty envelopes instead of tabulating them.

The ballots were unaccounted for until Nov. 7, when they were discovered, sealed, and ultimately delivered to the county under police escort.

By then, Lagrou and several other non-election officials had already entered the office — a move that broke the ballots’ chain of custody, the system meant to ensure the secure transfer of election documents throughout the election process. City officials have said no one knew the ballots were there at the time. But once the chain was broken, the fight over whether the ballots could be counted began.

Canvassers ultimately declined to take action, leaving the 37 ballots out of the final results.

Uncertainty in a city wracked by election problems

The dispute has unfolded against a backdrop of broader election turmoil in Hamtramck.

In August, two council members were charged with felonies after allegedly forging signatures on absentee ballots during the city’s 2023 council elections. One of them, Muhtasin Sadman, pleaded guilty to reduced charges late last month. The other, Mohammed Hassan, is scheduled for a jury trial next month, according to court records.

Four other men — including three current council members — were named in an April document Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel used to seek a special prosecutor in the case. Nessel has been a vocal critic against Hamtramck’s LGBTQ policies and the petition notes that critics have accused her of bringing other prosecutions due to anti-Muslim bias. Monroe County Prosecutor Jeffery Yorkey has been appointed, but did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

No other charges have been filed.

Alharbi said Hamtramck is working to rebuild its reputation and show “we’re not that anymore,” pushing back against assumptions that city officials are criminals. The punching bags are gone, he said, and he looks forward to welcoming in a new clerk. Alharbi said the city already has applicants for the job.

“And now,” he said, “we have a secure door on that office.”

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

  • george conway
  • noam chomsky
  • civil war
  • Kayleigh mcenany
  • Melania trump
  • drudge report
  • paul krugman
  • Lindsey graham
  • Lincoln project
  • al franken bill maher
  • People of praise
  • Ivanka trump
  • eric trump
Disclaimer: gli articoli ripubblicati su questo sito provengono da piattaforme pubbliche e sono forniti esclusivamente a scopo informativo. Non riflettono necessariamente le opinioni di MEXC. Tutti i diritti rimangono agli autori originali. Se ritieni che un contenuto violi i diritti di terze parti, contatta crypto.news@mexc.com per la rimozione. MEXC non fornisce alcuna garanzia in merito all'accuratezza, completezza o tempestività del contenuto e non è responsabile per eventuali azioni intraprese sulla base delle informazioni fornite. Il contenuto non costituisce consulenza finanziaria, legale o professionale di altro tipo, né deve essere considerato una raccomandazione o un'approvazione da parte di MEXC.

Potrebbe anche piacerti

Time Traveler to XRP Investor: Once It Starts, There Is No Stopping This Perfect Catalyst

Time Traveler to XRP Investor: Once It Starts, There Is No Stopping This Perfect Catalyst

Time Traveler (@Traveler2236), a well-known crypto commentator and enthusiast, has shared a detailed projection for XRP’s price progression in 2026. His forecast
Condividi
Timestabloid2026/03/11 21:31
The path to clarity: BIR’s new audit framework

The path to clarity: BIR’s new audit framework

The first quarter of 2026 has been anything but quiet for taxpayers. Along with the preparations for filing income tax returns, the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s
Condividi
Bworldonline2026/03/11 20:30
PYUSD Token Burn: Unpacking the Astonishing 600 Million Vanish

PYUSD Token Burn: Unpacking the Astonishing 600 Million Vanish

BitcoinWorld PYUSD Token Burn: Unpacking the Astonishing 600 Million Vanish The cryptocurrency world is abuzz with a significant event: a massive PYUSD token burn involving 600 million units of the stablecoin. This astonishing development, first reported by Whale Alert, saw a substantial portion of PYUSD removed from circulation from an unknown wallet. Such an event naturally sparks curiosity and raises questions about its implications for the stablecoin’s stability and future trajectory. What does it mean when such a large sum simply vanishes? What Exactly is a PYUSD Token Burn? Before diving into the specifics of this event, it is crucial to understand what a token burn entails. In simple terms, a token burn is the permanent removal of cryptocurrency tokens from circulation. This is achieved by sending tokens to an unspendable wallet address, often referred to as a “burner” address, where they can never be retrieved or used again. This process effectively reduces the total supply of the cryptocurrency. Why Burn Tokens? Token burns are often executed for several reasons: To reduce supply and potentially increase scarcity, which could lead to an increase in value if demand remains constant. To stabilize a cryptocurrency’s price, particularly for stablecoins. As part of a deflationary mechanism or to implement specific tokenomics strategies. To signal commitment to the project’s long-term health and value. The 600 Million PYUSD Token Burn: What Happened? Whale Alert, a well-known blockchain tracker, recently flagged a colossal transaction: 600 million PYUSD being transferred to an unknown wallet, which was subsequently identified as a burn address. The details surrounding the origin and specific intent behind this particular burn remain somewhat mysterious. However, the outcome is clear: these 600 million PYUSD tokens are now permanently out of circulation. This scale of a PYUSD token burn is not an everyday occurrence. It represents a substantial reduction in the overall supply of the stablecoin. While the exact reasoning from the entity initiating the burn is not public, such large-scale actions are typically strategic, aimed at influencing market dynamics or fulfilling predefined tokenomic policies. Why Does This PYUSD Token Burn Matter for the Stablecoin? A burn of this magnitude carries significant weight, especially for a stablecoin like PYUSD. Stablecoins are designed to maintain a stable value, often pegged to a fiat currency like the US dollar. Reducing the supply can have several implications: Scarcity and Value: By decreasing the total available supply, the burn could theoretically enhance the scarcity of PYUSD. For a stablecoin, this often means reinforcing its peg rather than driving up its price above the peg. Peg Stability: A controlled burn can be a mechanism to help maintain the stablecoin’s peg to its underlying asset. If the stablecoin’s market price deviates below its peg, reducing supply can help bring it back into line. Market Confidence: Large, well-communicated burns can sometimes boost investor confidence, signaling that the issuers are actively managing the token’s supply to ensure its stability and health. However, an ‘unknown wallet’ aspect adds a layer of intrigue. What Are the Potential Impacts of Such a Large PYUSD Token Burn? The immediate impact of the 600 million PYUSD token burn is a reduction in the total circulating supply. This action, while seemingly straightforward, can ripple through the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. For PYUSD holders and potential investors, understanding these potential impacts is key. One primary effect is on the supply-demand equilibrium. With fewer tokens available, if demand for PYUSD remains consistent or grows, the stablecoin’s peg could be strengthened. Moreover, such a substantial burn might also be part of a larger strategy to comply with regulatory requirements or to adjust the stablecoin’s backing reserves. It is important to consider the transparency surrounding such events. While the act of burning is verifiable on the blockchain, the ‘unknown wallet’ aspect of this particular burn leaves room for speculation about its origins and ultimate goals. Transparency in such large-scale operations often builds greater trust within the community. In conclusion, the recent 600 million PYUSD token burn is a remarkable event that underscores the dynamic nature of the stablecoin market. While the exact motivations behind this specific burn from an unknown wallet remain to be fully clarified, its immediate effect is a significant reduction in PYUSD’s circulating supply. This move has the potential to influence the stablecoin’s scarcity, strengthen its peg, and shape market perceptions, ultimately contributing to the ongoing evolution of the digital asset landscape. Frequently Asked Questions About the PYUSD Token Burn Here are some common questions regarding token burns and the recent PYUSD event: Q1: What is a cryptocurrency token burn? A1: A token burn is the process of permanently removing cryptocurrency tokens from circulation by sending them to an unspendable wallet address. This reduces the total supply of the token. Q2: Why do projects conduct token burns? A2: Projects burn tokens for various reasons, including reducing supply to potentially increase scarcity, maintaining a stable price (especially for stablecoins), implementing deflationary tokenomics, or signaling commitment to the project’s long-term health. Q3: How does a PYUSD token burn affect its value? A3: For a stablecoin like PYUSD, a token burn is typically used to help maintain its peg to the US dollar by adjusting supply. While it reduces scarcity, its primary goal is usually to reinforce stability rather than to increase its price above the peg. Q4: Is the 600 million PYUSD burn a positive or negative event? A4: Generally, a controlled token burn is considered a positive mechanism for managing supply and potentially strengthening a stablecoin’s peg. The specific details, like the ‘unknown wallet’ in this case, might raise questions about transparency, but the act of burning itself is a common strategy. Q5: How can I verify a token burn? A5: Token burns are recorded on the blockchain. You can typically verify a burn by looking up the transaction on a blockchain explorer, where you will see tokens sent to a known burn address (an address with no private key, making the funds irretrievable). The world of stablecoins is constantly evolving, and events like this PYUSD token burn are crucial to understanding its dynamics. If you found this article insightful, please consider sharing it with your network on social media. Your shares help us bring important crypto news and analysis to a wider audience! To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping stablecoin market stability. This post PYUSD Token Burn: Unpacking the Astonishing 600 Million Vanish first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Condividi
Coinstats2025/09/18 01:40