Election integrity in Michigan is under serious scrutiny as Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson pushes through new election rules without the necessary approval from the state legislature. Critics argue that these moves are designed to benefit Democrats in the approaching elections, raising alarms about the security and transparency of the voting process. Benson, who is unpopular in Michigan and has lost several legal battles concerning her election policies, has come under fire for making it harder for groups like Check My Vote to operate effectively within the state.
Phani Mantravadi, the founder of Check My Vote, has articulated significant concerns regarding Benson’s actions. He highlights that she seems intent on obfuscating the reasons behind discrepancies in the voting process, including a staggering 125,428 excess votes cast in the November 2024 election. He asserts that the explanations from Benson’s office are not adding up and raises the question: “Why is she preventing the release of voter lists from counties and voter data from e-pollbooks?” This lack of transparency only fuels suspicions about her intentions.
Critics also point to Benson’s attempts to shift blame onto local clerks for issues in the voter rolls, claiming that these problems stem from misadministration rather than systemic failures. However, the ongoing issues and the frequency of reported “glitches” suggest deeper, possibly intentional failures. “If she truly wants to address the problems being brought to light,” Mantravadi argues, “one would think she would welcome solutions” like those offered by citizen volunteers working with Check My Vote.
During a recent hearing in Lansing about her proposed rule changes, Benson did not attend, prompting many to question her commitment to transparent governance. Reports indicate that not a single attendee spoke in favor of her initiatives, illustrating the widespread apprehension regarding the integrity of Michigan’s elections. Multiple concerns were voiced about the potential for lawsuits under federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, with opponents fearing that the proposed changes could jeopardize Michigan’s federal election funding.
Benson’s proposed regulations complicate the process for challenging voter registrations, requiring submitted complaints to come from registered voters in the same municipality and to be backed by a notarized affidavit. Furthermore, local clerks would have the option to investigate complaints at their discretion rather than being mandated to do so, diminishing accountability in voter registration oversight. Tools that facilitate voter roll maintenance, such as Check My Vote and Ancestry.com, are also set to be banned as evidence sources under the new rules.
Power is shifting from local clerks to Benson’s office regarding the authority to cancel registrations, which may only occur after a lengthy waiting period unless specific criteria are met. These measures seem to echo a broader pattern of attempting to obscure the realities of how the voting process operates in Michigan.
As her rules await a vote from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules—a bipartisan body of lawmakers—the lingering shadow of her previous legal challenges looms. Benson’s track record, marked by at least nine legal defeats, suggests an uphill battle if her new policies are challenged in court. Each loss underscores a flawed approach that many feel undermines the state’s electoral integrity.
The unfolding situation in Michigan invites an unsettling reflection: the phrase “Democrats can’t win if they don’t cheat” resonates as concerns grow over the integrity of elections. With the stakes this high, the call for transparency and accountability has never been more urgent. Benson’s actions, and her subsequent absence from a crucial hearing, only deepen the skepticism surrounding her administration.
The imperative for secure and trust-inducing electoral practices in Michigan continues to be overshadowed by Benson’s controversial rule-making, leaving many Michiganders anxious about the upcoming elections. In a battleground state, the paths chosen today will shape not only the election but trust in the democratic process for years to come.
"*" indicates required fields
