Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

GOP activist sues 17 Michigan counties with 'abnormally high' registration

Michigan voting

The suit claims voter rolls in 17 counties are not being properly maintained. Above, a March primary polling place in Warren, Mich.

Elaine Cromie/Getty Images

A Republican official in Michigan has filed a lawsuit alleging 17 counties across the battleground state are violating federal law by not removing ineligible people from the voter rolls.

The suit is similar to claims filed in several states by the conservative Public Interest Legal Foundation, which maintain that voter manifests in plenty of closely contested areas are clogged with the names of far too many who have died, moved away, gone to prison or are no longer eligible for other reasons to cast ballots.

These lawsuits are at the heart of a mostly partisan debate pitting Republicans, who see maintenance of these government records as essential to preventing election fraud, against Democrats, who deride such efforts as purges of eligible voters in the pursuit of Election Say advantage.


Tony Daunt, the executive director of the conservative Michigan Freedom Fund as well as a board member of the Clinton County GOP near Lansing, filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday against Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's Democratic secretary of state, and Johnathan Brater, director of the Bureau of Elections.

His complaint targets the "abnormally high" registration levels in one out of every five counties in the state — including three in the densely populated suburbs of Detroit: Washtenaw, Livingston and Oakland, the second most populous county in the state.

The lawsuit says the number of people on the voting rolls in Leelanau County (Traverse City) is more than the estimated adult population. For all the other counties, it says, the number of names on the rosters exceed 90 percent of the estimated voting age population.

The suit states that the average around the country is for 67 percent of the voting age population to be registered.

Daunt argues that this is proof that the counties are not following state and federal laws requiring that election officials have a plan for removing the names of people who are no longer eligible and to follow that plan.

The suit argues that not removing ineligible voters from the rolls creates fear that some of these people will vote illegally and generally undermines confidence in the integrity of elections.

Benson's office said the statistics cited were deeply flawed, that the state's motor voter system is highly accurate and that the suit makes "no attempt to distinguish between active and inactive registration, and asserts the false notion that voter registration rates should be low."

The Public Interest Legal Foundation filed a similar suit against Detroit election officials last December. A trial has been set for a year from now — meaning the matter will not be settled until long after the presidential election, where Michigan's 16 electoral votes will be central to the outcome. President Trump carried the state four years ago by 11,000 votes, a margin of less than two-tenths of 1 percent. The Democratic nominee had won in the state the previous seven times.

Lawsuits filed by the group in Indiana and Ohio have led to successful settlements requiring regular maintenance of voter rolls.

Incidents of in-person voter fraud nationwide remain extremely rare, and Trump's now-disbanded voting integrity commission failed to uncover any significant evidence of misconduct.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less