Benson vows to sign Michigan's Voting Rights Act first: Clerks have reasons to dread it

Package could revive the ranked-choice voting system county clerks

unanimously rejected

By Kristine Christlieb, Editor, MFEI News & Commentary

November 11, 2026

Michigan’s election clerks have absorbed wave after wave of change since voters approved constitutional amendments in 2018 and 2022 that brought same-day registration and early voting. Now, clerks need to prepare for another wave on the way.

Governor-elect Jocelyn Benson promised the first bill she signs will be the Michigan Voting Rights Act (MVRA). The four-bill package could open local clerks to new lawsuits, additional court oversight and a path to the ranked-choice voting county clerks unanimously opposed.

With Michigan voters handing Democrats the state House and a 23-15 Senate majority, Benson’s promise likely will be fulfilled.

A Back Door for Ranked-Choice Voting

In a rare move for Michigan county clerks; in October 2025 they took sides in a ballot fight. The Michigan Association of County Clerks voted unanimously to oppose a proposed ranked-choice voting amendment. “Determining a winner will take drastically longer under ranked-choice voting,” Kent County Clerk Lisa Posthumus Lyons said in the association’s statement.

Rank MI Vote, the organization promoting ranked-choice voting, folded its 2026 ballot drive two months later. Just when ranked choice looked dead, Benson's Voting Rights Act could ressurect it. Here’s how that would work.

Take a city that elects its council members at large, with every voter picking every seat. Under Benson's proposed MVRA, a voter or group could sue, claiming the at-large system dilutes minority votes because a voting majority wins all the at-large seats, and minority voters’ favorites never do.

If a judge agrees, the judge picks the fix. The menu includes redrawing districts or switching to an “alternative method of election.” The bill, passed by the Senate in 2024, defines that term to include proportional ranked-choice voting. Senate Bill 961 reintroduces that version, according to the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The fiscal agency also says a judge may order a remedy that conflicts with state or local law when that law would block an adequate fix.

Likelihood

This is no hypothetical. Lawsuits under similar state laws have already delivered ranked choice elsewhere.

New York passed its own voting rights act in 2022. Two years later, six residents sued the Town of Newburgh, claiming its at-large town board elections weakened Black and Hispanic voters. The town settled this year. It admitted no violation but agreed to elect all five board seats by ranked choice starting in 2027. It also agreed to pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers $1.6 million. Newburgh becomes the second place in New York, after New York City, to use ranked choice.

California went further. In June, Orange County Superior Court Judge Craig Griffin ruled tentatively that Huntington Beach’s at-large council elections violate the state’s voting rights act. He ordered ranked choice, in November 2026 if the county could manage it and by 2028 if not. The county registrar had said he had no way to run ranked-choice elections.

Palm Desert, California, settled a similar lawsuit in 2019 by adopting ranked choice for its city council.

Michigan’s bill carries the same sting. A town that loses would pay the winning side’s lawyers.

Lansing City Clerk Chris Swope saw it coming. Testifying for the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks in December 2024, he warned the act would let judges order remedies now illegal in Michigan, such as ranked choice, Bridge Michigan reported.

Swope is no foe of voting-access laws. In 2021, he opposed Secure MI Vote, a petition drive to tighten voter ID rules. He said the proposal “targets particular people to make it harder for them to vote.”

Three years later, he testified against a bill also claiming to protect voters.

“If you had told me a year ago that I would ever testify in opposition to anything called a voting rights bill, I would have laughed in your face,” Swope told the House Elections Committee. He called it “a little bit sad” that clerks were in that position.

More ways to land in court

 Ranked choice is only one headache of the MVRA. The bill bars any local rule or practice that produces a statistically significant “disparity” between a “protected class” and other voters. No proof of intent is required. Close or move a polling place, early voting site or drop box, and a town can lose in court unless the change serves a compelling interest with no less harmful option.

Lose, and a judge can make the town seek court permission before changing any voting policy for up to 10 years. A judge can also install a monitor for up to 10 years, billed to the town, when disabled voters’ rights are violated.

Then comes the paperwork. Clerks must notify the Secretary of State at least 20 days before starting a voter-roll removal program, and before acting on requests to inspect voting equipment or challenges to a voter’s registration. Deaths, moves and voter requests are exempt from the removal notice.

Clerks pushed back

 Both statewide clerk associations stayed officially neutral on the 2024 package. Their members were not. Clerks told Votebeat they feared costs dumped on municipalities and penalties for honest mistakes. Sterling Heights Clerk Melanie Ryska, then president of the municipal clerks group, asked: “Why engage in a ‘gotcha game’ that penalizes well-meaning clerks?”

Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown testified that mandatory curbside voting could force her county to quit running shared early voting sites. She called the extra poll workers an unfunded mandate.

Why backers want it

 Supporters of the new voting rights legislation, including Benson, call the act a firewall, saying the U.S. Supreme Court gutted key parts of the federal Voting Rights Act in April. Sen. Darrin Camilleri, D-Trenton, the lead sponsor, argues states must now take responsibility and protect minority voters themselves.

Rank MI Vote wants the legislation passed. A May 20 X post, quoted the organization’s executive director who testified: “Michigan desperately needs to pass a state Voting Rights Act to protect voting rights and ensure equitable representation in government.”

Third trip to the plate

Democrats first filed the package in June 2023. It died in the House during the 2024 lame-duck session. Pure Integrity Michigan Elections and MFEI sounded warnings as it moved. The Senate passed the new version 20-17 on June 16, and it has sat in a Republican-led House committee since.

Those bills die when this session ends. A new package is expected when the Democrat-run Legislature convenes in January. The incoming House speaker, Rep. Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton, said the act “remains a priority for the House Democrats.”

Clerks helped pause the 2026 statewide ballot drive for ranked-choice voting. This time, the decision could be in the hands of a judge.