Michigan’s Dirty Democrats Pass 4 NEW Election Bills Including Radical Lottery-Style RANKED CHOICE VOTING
Court Appointed Election Monitors and THEFT of Election Control From Local Clerks
MI Democrat Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks
Michigan’s Democrat-controlled Senate passed a package of four DIRTY election bills yesterday, referred to as the “State Voting Rights Act.”
The bills, now heading to the Democrat-controlled House, have stirred controversy among critics asserting they represent a significant state government takeover of elections and threaten election integrity on a number of fronts, not the least of which is the special treatment afforded to “protected classes” of people. In addition, Senate Bills 401 through 404 shift control of elections from the legislature to the state’s courts and executive branch, giving the secretary of state unprecedented power over local governments.
For example, SB 401 empowers court-appointed monitors to oversee local elections, opens the door to ranked-choice voting, and forces local governments to notify the SOS office before changing even the location of a ballot drop box. It also funds the expenses of candidates from protected classes to run for office.
Patrice Johnson, Chair of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME), described the bills as a major blow to election integrity. “Under the auspices of equity, these bills create favored ‘protected classes,’” she said. “They give the state judicial and executive branches of government authoritarian control over local jurisdictions and minimize the role of duly elected legislators. They use taxpayer dollars to fund the government takeover.”
Johnson highlighted SB 401’s introduction of the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund. “This bill creates a bottomless pit of funding for lawfare against local governments and citizens. The funds come from taxpayer dollars and ‘charitable contributions or from any other source,’” she said. “This is tantamount to welcoing dark money and institutionalizing banana republic corruption. Plus, the funds remain separate in perpetuity.”
Sec. 15.
(1) The Michigan Voting Rights assistance fund is created in the state treasury.
(2) The state treasurer shall deposit money and other assets received from charitable contributions or from any other source in the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of money in the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund and credit interest and earnings from the investments to the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund.
(3) Money in the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund at the close of the fiscal year remains in the fund and does not lapse into the general fund.
(4) The Department of State is the administrator of the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund for audits of the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund.
(5) The Department of State shall expend money from the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance fund only for the purpose of reimbursing prospective plaintiffs and local governments for certain expenses….
SB 401, Sec. 3, (a) “Alternative method of election” means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government other than an at-large method of election or a district-based method of election and includes but is not limited to, proportional ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, or limited voting that incorporate aspects of at-large and district-based methods of election.
One key point of contention is Senate Bill 404, which has drawn the ire of Republican lawmakers. Former Secretary of State and current Senator Ruth Johnson, R-Holly, strongly opposed the bill, claiming it would erode voter privacy and place unnecessary burdens on local election officials.
“These bills would cost taxpayers millions of dollars and create new obstacles for our clerks and local units of government that are simply unnecessary,” Sen. Johnson said. She argued the bills go beyond existing federal and state voting rights protections and would establish an excessive bureaucracy.
Senator Johnson’s concerns about electioneering within polling places were central to her objections. She emphasized the threat to the privacy of voters and the potential for inappropriate influence within polling locations.
“Under this bill, I could enter a polling location — even if I was a candidate on the ballot — and say ‘Hi, I’m Ruth Johnson, please accept this snack while you’re waiting in line to vote.’” She highlighted the potential for candidates to campaign inside polling places. The act of distributing food and drinks to voters within 100 feet of a polling location is currently against the law and considered electioneering.
Senator Johnson proposed two amendments to SB 404 aimed at restricting such practices, but both were defeated in the Senate vote. One amendment sought to ban candidates from distributing food or beverages inside polling locations, while the other proposed limiting such activities to areas outside polling places.
Sen. Ruth Johnson concluded her remarks by stating, “The voting process is a private opportunity for citizens to express their preferences without undue influence or distraction.”
Senator Jim Runestad (R) came out swinging against all four bills. Of SB 402, he said, “Establishing an ‘institute’ for collecting election data outside of a government entity that is understood by the public to be proprietary information is a dangerous precedent and a breach of the public trust.”
SB 403 expressly assigns language assistance for elections to local city and township governments. This bill’s enactment, Runstad said, “Would not only place a substantial financial burden on local government, but it will also be especially burdensome as part of the election day process at the precincts.”
He called for legislation and funding to develop English language programs for all non-English-speaking eligible voters and non-voters “to reduce the need for this type of legislation.” He criticized SB 403 as impractical and unsustainable from a fiscal point of view.
Patrice Johnson warned legislators not to be lulled into thinking they can reverse these bills if party control changes during the November 5 election. “These bills are slated to take effect in January 2026, but Section 13(5) in SB 401 states, ‘The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act,’” Johnson warned. “The executive branch is trying to change the rules and adopt SB 603 early under the Administrative Procedures Act. It’s logical to assume they’ll try to do the same with this entire package.”
All four bills now move to the Michigan House, where further debate is expected as lawmakers grapple with concerns about election costs, the potential for legal battles, and the balance between equity of outcomes versus equal rights for all people.
What you can do if you are a Michigan resident:
Contact your state representative today and tell him or her to vote NO on House Journal 66 and Senate Bills 401, 402, 403, and 404.
Published with permission from PIME (Pure Integrity Michigan Elections) by guest contributor Jerold Jones
