Benson's Flawed 2024 Election Audit

"Random" system misses two of the state's largest cities

By Kristine Christlieb, MFEI News & Commentary Editor

October 15, 2025

After ten months, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s Bureau of Elections has produced the constitutionally-mandated audit of statewide results from the 2024 election, but it missed reviewing any ballots from two of the state’s most populous cities.

Made public on October 13, the audit’s risk-limiting, statistical methodology reviewed “a random sample of ballots drawn statewide.” But the sample precinct batches didn’t include any ballots from Detroit (Wayne County) or Troy (Oakland County). Detroit and Troy are the largest cities in the state’s two most populous counties.

The Michigan Department of State press release said, “the report affirms Michigan’s election integrity and accuracy.” It went on to quote Benson: “Careful, detailed and thorough post-election audits are critical to election security and accuracy.”

NBC affiliate WILX-TV in Lansing headlined the same message: “Post-2024 election audit says Michigan’s votes were ‘secure and accurate.’” WJRT/ABC12 out of Flint reported, “Random audit of 2024 Michigan election results finds small changes.”

One poll claims Michigan voters tend to trust the state’s election system. In July, The Center Square reported on a poll conducted in June 2025 by Richard Czuba of the Glengariff Group that found 76% of Michigan voters believed the November 2024 election was fair and accurate.

In a telephone interview, Patrice Johnson, chair and founder of Michigan Fair Elections Institute, warned: “These risk limiting audits (RLAs) are flawed and give voters false assurance.”

Why Did the Audit Take So Long?

Other experts agree. One month after Czuba’s polling, a report from Susan Greenhalph, senior advisor on election security for Free Speech for People, and Dr. David Jefferson, a nationally recognized computer scientist, said the 2024 post-election audits of seven swing states were “inadequate” and lacking “transparency.”

The report singled out Michigan because as of August 2025, the state’s 2024 election audit results still had not been released.

“Although Michigan election officials have publicly touted their post-election audits as providing proof of soundness of the election outcomes, the actual audit procedures do not support such claims. Michigan’s post-election audits are conducted well after certification and only published months later.”

Benson’s report confirms the assessment. Because of a recount, the audit fieldwork couldn’t begin until January, but even with a later start, it should not have taken nine months to publish the results. The 2020 General Election audit was conducted more quickly. The full report was published in late April 2021.

According to GROK XAI, “Even the shorter 2020 timeline was on the longer side for RLAs compared to other states, and 2024's extended window amplifies the concerns around timeliness."

Delays mean findings aren’t available when public scrutiny is highest, right after the election. Delays also undermine the reason a risk-limited audit is used: because it provides swift, statistical assurances of election. Delays exacerbate distrust, especially in a swing state with controversial election administration procedures.

Ten months to complete a RLA is outside the norm and reinforces worries about a secretary of state whose work revamping the state’s campaign finance transparency portal was deemed inadequate and removed from her supervision.

“No one was surprised when the campaign finance project was transferred to IT,” said Johnson. “The top ranks of the secretary of state’s office are populated with lawyers. These are not people with expertise in managing large and complex data systems.”

Why Did Detroit and Troy Get a Pass?

To the average Michigan voter, the most troubling part of the election audit is Detroit, the state’s largest city made notorious in the 2020 election cycle. The fact that no ballots from Detroit were included in the audit may not, strictly speaking, make a statistical difference, but the street view of the omission is an obvious faux pas given the level of concern about election integrity, especially in Detroit.

“An audit should be more than statistically valid, it needs to identify known trouble spots in the state and address them,” Johnson said. “The situation also points to the importance of careful, human involvement in the process, using human eyes to review the software output for anomalies. Did someone really think it would be okay to skip over the city of Detroit?”

Lansing, Flint, and Grand Rapids were included in the audit, and at least one precinct from every county was audited; but flying past Detroit in Wayne County and Troy in Oakland County, the largest cities in the state’s two most populous counties, automatically triggers red flags.

Many in the election integrity community are calling for forensic audits of statewide election results saying RLAs leave too many questions unanswered, or in the case of Detroit and Troy, left unaudited.  

---