Michigan’s Voter Roll Controversy: A Closer Look
The issue of voter registration integrity in Michigan has ignited intense scrutiny. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s refusal to share voter registration data with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has raised alarms. Critics contend that recent changes to Michigan’s election rules could lead to inflated records and inaccuracies on voter rolls, risking the state’s electoral integrity for years to come.
This fall, Benson announced substantial modifications to how Michigan manages its voter rolls. Under her leadership, voters can now remain listed as “active” for up to 20 years without voting—an increase from the previous four-year standard. The new rules further complicate the ability for citizens to contest questionable voter registrations. Now, challengers must have “direct, firsthand observance” of a voter’s status and are barred from using databases or public record analyses to raise concerns.
As Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon highlighted, these changes come at a time when the DOJ seeks access to detailed voter roll data to ensure that only eligible voters—namely U.S. citizens—are registered. “We’ve been asking states to produce the data of their voter rolls to be able to make sure,” Dhillon stated, emphasizing the importance of maintaining clean rolls devoid of duplicates or registrations from non-citizens.
Benson’s outright dismissal of the DOJ’s request, which she described as an intrusion into sensitive personal data, has intensified the situation. “I told them they can’t have it,” she told her supporters. This defiance raises questions about her commitment to transparency and accountability in Michigan’s election process.
Data from the Michigan Fair Elections Institute (MFEI) illustrates broader concerns. With over 558,000 inactive voter registrations, a September 2025 report revealed that 28% of a sampled group of these inactive registrations contained errors, with individuals listed at non-existent addresses. Patrice Johnson, head of MFEI, criticized the new rules as irresponsible, given the high rate of population mobility: “Benson’s new rules threaten to make the problem exponentially worse,” she warned, as ballots could end up being mailed to long-outdated addresses.
The implications of these changes are significant. A voter who moved out of state in 2006 could remain on the Michigan rolls until 2026 without any opportunity for challenges from election monitors—a grim prospect for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
Moreover, the Michigan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR), which is tasked with reviewing these regulations, failed to reach a quorum, meaning Benson’s proposed rules will automatically take effect without further legislative oversight. This bypasses established processes and allows her administrative changes to redefine what constitutes an “inactive” voter.
Another contentious aspect of the new rules is the stringent criteria for challenging voter registrations. The emphasis on having firsthand knowledge effectively sidelines the role that vigilant citizens and election integrity groups play in upholding the democratic process. “This cuts the public out of ensuring elections are accurate,” Johnson pointed out, highlighting the obstacles faced by those trying to maintain the integrity of Michigan’s elections.
The DOJ’s suit filed against Michigan accuses the state of failing to uphold its responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Civil Rights Act. These laws obligate states to ensure their voter rolls are accurate and accessible for federal inspection. Critics view Benson’s resistance to comply as part of a larger pattern that compromises both transparency and trust in the electoral system.
Benson’s refusal to provide voter data has raised suspicions of broader mismanagement. Many believe this is not just about the integrity of voter registration but also about how the state handles potential cases of non-citizen voting. The DOJ is particularly concerned about challenges in removing fraudulent registrations and preventing citizen oversight through restrictive policies.
The unfolding situation in Michigan may have ramifications beyond its borders, possibly shaping the national conversation around election administration. With the midterms on the horizon and Benson in the midst of her campaign for governor, scrutiny of her management of Michigan’s election system is expected to ramp up. Federal officials assert that cooperation between states and the federal government is vital to ensure eligible voters cast their ballots while effectively removing ineligible registrations.
The stakes are high. If other states emulate Michigan’s approach by extending inactivity thresholds or denying access to voter information, public confidence in elections could diminish significantly, particularly in crucial battlegrounds.
For the moment, Benson remains steadfast in her position, reiterating her refusal to comply with the DOJ’s requests for voter registration data. However, the looming threat of legal action from the federal government suggests that this confrontation over voter integrity may not be resolved easily. The focus will likely remain on Michigan, as the integrity of its voter rolls has undoubtedly become a critical issue in the broader conversation about electoral accountability.
"*" indicates required fields
