Michigan Election Data Dispute Intensifies as State Blocks Parts of FOIA Request
- Jun 25
- 3 min read
Department of State memo to county clerks instructs them how to respond to FOIA
By Cyril Holloway | June 25, 2025
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s Department of State has instructed Michigan’s county clerks to withhold some of the election data Michigan Fair Elections Institute (MFEI) requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), escalating concerns over election transparency.
The directive, outlined in a June 16 memorandum from Bureau of Elections (BoE) Deputy Director Adam Fracassi-Weir, cites legal and privacy concerns; but critics argue it undermines public trust in Michigan’s elections.
MFEI Founder and Chair Patrice Johnson criticized the BoE’s stance, stating, “Without government officials complying with transparency laws, we have no constitutional republic, and our individual rights are under assault.”
MFEI’s May 6 FOIA request sought election data from the May 2025 special elections —including voter IDs, counties, precincts, election dates, and absentee status — to compare state and county records. Fracassi’s memo warned clerks against releasing “method of voting” data, such as absentee ballots, citing a lawsuit (Mantravadi v. Bureau of Elections, Case No. 24-038-MZ) and Michigan’s constitutional secret ballot guarantee (Const. 1963, art 2, § 4). The BoE argued that in low-turnout precincts, such data could reveal individual votes if cross-referenced with results, advising clerks to consult attorneys before complying.
In Livingston County, 2024 data mismatches between county and state records were resolved through collaboration with MFEI, demonstrating that transparency can address discrepancies.
Deleted Records Fuel Suspicion
The memo follows MFEI’s allegations that voter records were deleted from the 2024 May primary and November general elections, certified on November 21, 2024, without audits. MFEI claims these deletions, including records of voters who cast multiple ballots, suggest potential fraud affecting candidates and amendments. The BoE maintains these deletions — 532,532 from 2019 to 2024 — are routine, required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) for deaths or relocations. However, the absence of public Qualified Voter File (QVF) logs makes these changes unauditable.
In Livingston County, 2024 data mismatches between county and state records were resolved through collaboration with MFEI, demonstrating that transparency can address discrepancies. Yet, the BoE’s restrictions on QVF data, which was publicly available for decades without reported issues, began after MFEI questioned deletion practices.
Clerks Face Pressure
Some county clerks perceive the BoE’s memo as political pressure rather than guidance, fearing retribution from state authorities if they comply with FOIA requests. Johnson countered, “Clerks need to realize the SoS is not their boss. Clerks are accountable to their local supervisory boards and constituents. Period.”
Despite Michigan law (MCL § 168.509q) requiring public access to voter data, the BoE’s directive has led many clerks to forgo FOIA compliance, citing ongoing litigation. Global models, like Canada’s anonymized voter logs, show privacy and transparency can coexist, challenging the BoE’s blanket denials.
Calls for Accountability
Michigan’s House Election Integrity Committee faces pressure to summon BoE leaders, Benson, and clerks from counties like Livingston and Genesee to testify under oath. Key questions remain: Why delete votes without audits or public logs? Why restrict data access if there’s nothing to hide? Without answers, Michigan’s election transparency remains clouded, risking further erosion of public confidence.
Content, links or images embedded within the article, may have been generated by artificial intelligence.
Commentaires