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

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
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