Michigan on Offense: The Path Forward to Strengthen Our Elections
Michigan’s elections follow a rigorous system of checks and balances that ensures every election is free, fair, and secure. In recent years, however, we’ve seen bad actors exploit weaknesses in state law — fueling misinformation, legal battles, and spurious attempts to overturn the will of the voters.
This fact sheet outlines three commonsense policy solutions that Michigan lawmakers and election administrators can consider to close those gaps — before and after Election Day.* For a deeper dive into the national context and proven solutions, see our full report, “States on Offense: The Path Forward to Strengthen Our Elections.” For more information, please contact us here.
Three Fixes for Stronger Michigan Elections
- Build voter confidence in elections by conducting statewide post-election, pre-certification audits.
- Limit frivolous challenges by establishing explicit standards, processes, and deadlines for post-election judicial challenges.
- Enhance transparency in the election process by clarifying the signature verification procedures for absentee ballots and applications.
| Michigan Elections By the Numbers |
|---|
| Registered Voters: 8,250,203 Voter Turnout (Registered Voters %): 2022 [62%]; 2024 [79%] |
| Voting Methods (Election Day/Early In-Person/Mail %): 2022: 58%/5%/37%; 2024: 43%/21%/35% |
| Recent Attempts to Exploit Election Vulnerabilities: Lawsuit Seeks to Disqualify Certain Overseas Voters Court Rejects SOS Guidance on Signature Verification |
Fix #1: Build Voter Confidence in Elections
Lawmakers can implement a uniform statewide audit process that requires localities to verify tabulation and other processes before submitting them for county certification. This process would allow election officials to identify and fix any discrepancies, increasing voter confidence in Michigan’s elections. Current Michigan law requires the Secretary of State to coordinate statewide audits after each election; however, the statutes do not clearly define the scope, timing, or process. Audits typically occur after certification, which does not leave election officials time to address any issues that may arise.
Fix #2: Limit Frivolous Post-Election Challenges
Lawmakers can establish explicit grounds, clarify proper venue, and set minimum evidentiary standards for post-election challenges. They can also set firm deadlines to ensure the timely resolution of post-election challenges. Michigan law currently provides few safeguards against frivolous post-election challenges. Unclear rules for venue, process, and evidentiary standards can lead to confusion and unnecessary delays. While nearly all challenges have ultimately been rejected, unclear deadlines for resolution cause delays in certification. These delays could jeopardize Michigan’s ability to meet federal deadlines for electing presidential electors or appointing new officeholders.
Fix #3: Increase Election Transparency
Lawmakers or election administrators can clearly and publicly define signature verification standards to increase transparency and reduce the risk of litigation. In 2023, Michigan enacted legislation that provided a general framework for verifying voter signatures on absentee ballot envelopes and applications. However, the statutory framework lacks the transparency found in states like Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon. Ahead of the 2024 election, this lack of statutory clarity resulted in litigation and could continue to trigger judicial challenges.
*This resource is strictly nonpartisan and for educational use only. It is 501(c)(3) compliant and not intended for any partisan, political, or electioneering activities.