On behalf of the Committee on House Administration, Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., is asking Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to clarify to local clerks that state party-appointed observers, also called challengers, are permitted to monitor the initial stage of mail-in ballot processing, and her office is ignoring the request.
In his Sept. 13 letter to Benson following her testimony at the committee’s Sept. 11 hearing on American confidence in elections, Steil asked Benson for clarification because, he wrote, “it is the Committee’s understanding that at least some clerk offices believe challengers have no right to be present during the initial processing of mail ballots and signature verification.” Steil gave Benson a deadline of Sept. 23, 2024, to “confirm and communicate to the various clerk offices that challengers are permitted to observe initial processing of mail ballots and signature verification.”
Benson’s office responded by the deadline, but did not say it would be issuing the requested clarification to clerks. In an email statement, Steil said, “I was disappointed by the lack of information provided by the Michigan Secretary of State’s office in response to my letter. Americans deserve secure and fair elections. I will be following up to ensure we receive a fulsome response.”
The Point of Contention
Michigan has a two-step process for mail-in ballots. First, the city and township clerk offices receive and process the mail-in ballots, examining them on three levels. Is the elector (the person voting) properly registered to vote? When was the ballot received? Can the signature on the ballot be verified? The second step in mail-in ballot processing is tabulating the ballots by a voter counting board.
There’s no dispute about having Michigan challengers in the second step of the process. The committee’s concern is the initial phase.
The Committee on House Administration has the constitutional authority to oversee elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. Steil argues in his letter that challengers are essential observers: “[I]n the event there is a contested House election in Michigan, it will assist us in assessing the reliability of the results.” Steil concludes by saying it would be “absurd” to permit challengers to observe in-person voting, but then prohibit challengers from observing mail voting.
Writing on behalf of Benson, Michigan Secretary of State Chief Legal Director Michael Brady’s Sept. 23 response to Steil’s request obfuscates the issue. Brady first argues that questions about Michigan challengers were not raised in the hearing. He then writes that observers are called poll watchers in Michigan, while challengers have an entirely separate role.
Brady then details what challengers are allowed to do in the first step, the initial stage of the process: “Each challenger-credentialing organization may assign one challenger to observe the issuance and receipt of absent voter ballots at a clerk’s office or a satellite location maintained by the clerk, including an Election Day Vote Center. A challenger may be present at the clerk’s office only when the office is open for business and during the period prior to an election when voters may request or return an absent voter ballot at the office.”
Michigan Fair Elections Founder Patrice Johnson explains how this system works in reality: “What people don’t realize is clerks aren’t always conducting the initial phase of the mail-in ballot processing in their offices during regular office hours. We have clerk sources here in Michigan telling us they take ballots home where they check the voter registration, document date and time of receipt and verify the signature.” All that is happening with no challengers present, she adds.
Johnson explains why the clerks take the ballots home: “Mail-in ballots require more scrutiny and only the clerks are allowed to do it. And now our clerks are inundated with mail-in ballots.” Johnson says many clerks are working part-time, and so they sometimes work from home to keep up. “It’s understandable, but it does create chain-of-custody questions and transparency problems. And obviously, it is a situation bad actors could exploit. How can we be sure registrations are checked? How do we know ballot signatures are actually verified? The truth is, we don’t.”
In 36 states, voters are sent mail-in ballots automatically or a mail-in ballot can be requested without justification. As Steil notes in his letter to Benson, “Transparency is especially important for mail voting, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be more vulnerable to fraud than in-person voting. Allowing observers to watch the processing of mail ballots guards against potential fraud and promotes public confidence.”
