The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling this past Wednesday on Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s election guidance is a pivotal moment that impacts how elections will be conducted across Michigan, particularly in the upcoming November 5th presidential election. The court, in a 4-3 decision, sided largely with Benson, stating that her guidance on election challenger credentialing and the procedures for reporting challenges was developed properly under Michigan election law. This ruling has significant implications for how elections will be managed in Michigan, a state where every vote counts, especially in communities that have historically faced barriers to voting.
The court’s decision, penned by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, who wrote for the majority of the four Democratic-nominated justices, emphasizes Benson’s role as the chief election officer of Michigan. “Under the Michigan Election Law, the secretary of state is the chief election officer of Michigan, and as such, the secretary has supervisory control over local election officials in the performance of their duties,” Bolden wrote. This ruling acknowledges Benson’s authority to issue guidance without needing to go through the lengthy rule-making process, a point of contention raised by the plaintiffs in the case.
The lawsuit was initially brought forth by several election challengers and the state and national Republican parties. They challenged a manual issued by Benson to clerks in 2022, which included instructions for election challengers, such as requiring a uniform credential form, limiting when challenges should be recorded, and banning electronic devices in absentee ballot counting rooms. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements conflicted with state election law and should have gone through the state’s rule-making process. The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling, however, found that Benson’s guidance was within her legal authority.
This case is not the first time Benson’s guidance has faced legal challenges. In 2021, plaintiffs successfully challenged her guidance on absentee signature verification, forcing Benson to go through the rule-making process. Her decision in 2020 to mail out unsolicited absentee ballot applications to all of Michigan’s registered voters also faced legal challenges, but it was upheld by both the Court of Claims and the Court of Appeals. Benson’s involvement in policies aimed at banning open carry at polling locations was similarly challenged in court.
In her response to the ruling, Benson expressed her appreciation for the court’s recognition of her responsibility to issue uniform guidance to Michigan’s clerks. She stated, “As our guidance has consistently made clear, challengers have a right to participate in the election process and they play an important role. But election officials have a responsibility to maintain order in the polling place and ensure voters can cast a ballot without interference.”
The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling also addressed the specific details of Benson’s guidance. The majority opinion clarified that requiring a uniform credential form for challengers does not change or materially alter the qualifications that challengers must meet. Additionally, the court ruled that challenges must be made to “an” election inspector, not “any” inspector, thus validating Benson’s guidance that designates a challenger liaison. This decision is crucial in ensuring that the process of reporting challenges is clear and orderly, preventing any potential chaos or confusion at polling locations.
Furthermore, the court addressed the role of election inspectors in assessing challenges. The ruling stated that election inspectors who receive a report cannot decline to record a challenge based on their personal assessment of its validity or merit. “While election inspectors have implicit authority to determine whether a challenge is one under MCL 168.727(1) such that they are required to record it, they cannot decline to record a challenge on the basis of their personal assessment of the validity or merit of the challenge,” the ruling said.
The issue of electronic devices in absentee voter counting rooms was also addressed in the court’s ruling. The Michigan Supreme Court found this matter to be debatable, as the Legislature had already amended the law to provide clearer guidelines on the possession and use of electronic devices in these spaces. This decision reflects the evolving nature of election law and the need for clear, up-to-date guidance to ensure that all participants in the election process understand the rules and regulations.
The ruling was not without dissent. Justice Elizabeth Clement, one of the Republican-nominated justices, expressed her disagreement with the majority opinion. She argued that the credential form, the requirement for a challenger liaison, and the rules governing challenger recordings and the removal of challengers for filing impermissible challenges conflicted with Michigan’s election law. Justice Brian Zahra, another Republican-nominated justice, also dissented, arguing that Benson’s guidance constituted rules that should have gone through the administrative rule-making process. Zahra wrote, “rules that were created without any public discussion, accountability, or transparency, as required by the APA (Administrative Procedures Act).”
Despite the dissenting opinions, Benson remains committed to her role and the guidelines issued by her office. She stated, “I’m grateful to the Michigan Supreme Court for recognizing this department’s legal responsibility to issue guidelines to clerks. As Michigan’s chief elections officer, the authority provided by the Legislature to issue uniform guidance to more than 1,600 clerks throughout the state is necessary to ensure every eligible voter can cast their ballot, while maintaining the security of our elections and the safety of our polling places.”
For Michigan’s Black community, this ruling is particularly important. The integrity of the election process is crucial in ensuring that every vote is counted and that the voices of Black Michiganders are heard in every election. As we approach the November 5th presidential election, it is essential for the community to remain informed and engaged in the electoral process. The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling provides much-needed clarity on the rules governing election challengers, ensuring that the process is orderly and fair.
About Post Author
