Gov. Gretchen Whitmer | Photo Courtesy of Michigan Governor's Office
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer | Photo Courtesy of Michigan Governor's Office
Michigan Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, a Democrat, blasted the petition by the nonprofit Secure MI Vote that was approved this week by the Board of Canvassers. The petition would, among other voting practice changes, tighten the procedures covering voter ID for in-person voting and absentee ballots.
With enough signatures is needed, Secure MI Vote can bypass Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s threatened veto of election reform measures in the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature.
“Secure MI Vote is anti-democracy and anti-American. We must stand together against this and any attempts to make it more difficult or confusing for Michiganders to vote,” Gilchrist said in a news release. “Every Michigan voter, regardless of who they vote for or what party they belong to, should be offended and angered by this deceitful effort to change the rules just because some people did not like the results of the 2020 election."
Michigan Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II
| By Cjh1452000/Wikimedia Commons
The initiative focuses on voter ID. Voters would be required to show a partial Social Security number or provide a valid photo ID to vote, the Detroit Free Press reports. Voters would no longer have the ability to sign an affidavit in the absence of such ID to cast their vote. They would have six days after Election Day to produce valid ID or their vote would not be counted. Absentee voters would have to include a copy of valid ID with their ballot as well. The proposal would also ban elections officials from accepting private donations to fund an election, along with limiting absentee ballot drop boxes and prohibiting election officials from sending out unsolicited absentee ballots.
Jamie Roe, a spokesperson supporting Secure MI Vote, said, “Now, what our opponents are saying is we’re keeping people from voting and there’s nothing that could be further from the truth,” Roe told WILX. “What we’re doing is keeping people from voting who are not eligible to vote and to those who say that every vote should instantly go into the voting stream whether you have an ID or not, I would just ask how much fraud is acceptable.”
By a margin of 79.7% to 16.2%, Michigan voters overwhelmingly support requiring voters to present a government ID when voting in person, according to the results of a recent statewide poll conducted by the Detroit Regional Chamber. The support includes majorities from every demographic group.
President Joe Biden carried Michigan by nearly 155,000 votes but former President Donald Trump has said, without evidence, that Biden won the state due to massive voter fraud.
A separate nationwide poll by the Honest Elections Project shows that 64% of voters, including black (51%) and Hispanic (66%) voters, as well as urban (59%) and independent (61%) voters support increase voting safeguards that mitigate fraud.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf reversed his position on voter ID one month after vetoing election reform legislation, which contained an ID provision, passed in June by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. A June Franklin & Marshall College poll showed that 74% of Pennsylvanians support voter ID.
The Republicans are almost certain to again send the governor sweeping election legislation. Earlier this week, the House State Government Committee approved an election reform measure, HB 1800, (similar to the legislation Wolf vetoed), and a proposed constitutional amendment to require voter ID.
For the Michigan effort, Secure MI Vote needs 340,000 signatures from registered voters over the next six months to bring the proposal before the legislature. With legislative approval, the changes become law without going before Witmer, a Democrat.
The proposed election changes also include a provision that prohibits the secretary of state and clerks from distributing unsolicited applications for absentee ballots, and one that bars local election officials from accepting private money to underwrite the cost of managing elections.