Not Going Gentle into Benson's Dark Night

Rule Set 14 regulations are in the can . . . but the fight continues

By Kristine Christlieb, MFEI News & Commentary Editor

December 9, 2025

Within weeks of announcing her run for Michigan governor, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson put forward three Requests for Rulemaking related to Michigan elections. Taken together, forty new regulations were proposed in early March. As of October 23, 2025, the first of the three sets of new election regulations — Rule Set 2025-14 ST — quietly went into effect with most Michiganders unaware of their devastating effects.

In less than six months, a request for rule changes was presented, regulations drafted, hearings held, and rules adopted. It was a record pace for substantive, non-emergency rulemaking, a process that typically takes 12-18 months.

Michigan Fair Elections Institute and others attempted to stop the Rule Set 14 freight train. Patrick Colbeck posted on X: “Benson et al are attempting to destroy the pollbook election record audit trail within 7 days of the certification of an election. These records include voter history data. . . . There is no other reasonable explanation for this new ruleset other than to cover up election fraud.”

In her analysis of the rule set, Patrice Johnson, founder and chair of Michigan Fair Elections Institute, wrote: “Rule Set 2025-14 ST represents a fundamental breach of constitutional governance, systematically violating federal statutes, state laws, and administrative procedures while undermining the very election integrity protections that ensure public confidence in Michigan's democratic processes.”

Focus of Proposed Rulemaking vs. Expanded Scope of Drafted Rules

In the original Request for Rulemaking (RFR) filed on March 6, 2025, the Secretary of State entitled the Rule Set, “Use of Electronic Pollbook.” The RFR is a form developed by the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (MOAHR)/Administrative Rules Division. Before a department can draft new regulations, MOAHR requires departments to respond to a series of questions. For example, MOAHR asks for a description of the general purpose of the proposed new rules. For Rule Set 2025-14 ST, Benson’s office wrote: “The purpose of these rules is to clarify rules regarding the electronic pollbook, given technological advances, the introduction of early voting and the early voting pollbook, and the security benefits of real time connection with the Qualified Voter File.”

Benson gave more information about the scope of the rules when her office explained whether the new regulations were to be based on complaints or comments from the public. Benson’s office said, “Yes," and claimed the new rules would be based on a survey sent to clerk staff who “supported overwhelmingly” that “all EPBs [electronic pollbooks] have live connectivity like the EV EPB [early voting electronic pollbooks].”

Benson’s office also claimed the new rules would not “exceed similar regulations, compliance requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional or federal level.” More on this to come.

In the initial stages, this RFR seemed fairly limited in scope, but the rule set that got drafted marched aggressively beyond “pollbook connectivity.”

WAY Beyond Pollbook Connectivity 

Michigan Fair Elections Institute undertook a detailed analysis of proposed Rule Set 2025-14 ST and identified two chief areas of concern: its impact on election data FOIA requests and retention of electronic pollbook data.

Both are concerning and very important, but Johnson says Rule 8 (168.48) has “the most egregious violations."

Rule 168.48 Data Retention

Rule 8

(1) Subject to subrule (2) of this rule, the electronic pollbook software and associated

files must be deleted from all devices by the seventh day following the final canvass and certification of the election, unless a petition for recount has been filed and the recount has not been completed, a post-election audit has been scheduled, or the deletion of the data has been stayed by an order of the court or the secretary of state. If a precinct is selected for an audit, the electronic pollbook software and associated files must be deleted from all devices by the seventh day following completion of the audit.

(2) The electronic pollbook software and associated files must not be deleted from devices until the bureau of elections or county clerk, as applicable, issues the release of security memorandum pertaining to that election.

 Johnson points out Rule 8 violates both federal and state law. She notes “federal law MANDATES 22-month retention of ALL election records." Plus, she writes, "the seven-day deletion prevents the auditable record-keeping required under 52 USC 21081."

Johnson claims Michigan faces “immediate federal legal jeopardy.”

• Criminal penalties for willful record retention violations

• Loss of HAVA funding for non-compliance

• Department of Justice enforcement actions

• Federal court intervention to preserve election records

The rule also violates Michigan state law requiring six-year retention of voter records. So much for Benson’s claim that her rules comply with all federal and state laws. 

Rule 168.42 Access to Electronic Pollbook Data & Software

Rule 2

The voter data contained in the electronic pollbook are public records subject to the

freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. Voter data that is exempt from disclosure under section 13 of the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.243, must not be released.

Johnson believes Rule 2 is an unauthorized FOIA exemption. She writes: “The Secretary lacks authority to create new exemptions beyond those specified in MCL15.243. Only the Legislature can expand FOIA exemptions, yet the Secretary has unilaterally done so through administrative rulemaking."

 Impact 

The truth is, the impact of Benson’s regulations won’t be felt until an election is challenged. It might be a race for a municipal office . . . or it might be the Michigan governor’s race. It’s when there’s a challenge that Michigan will wake up to the power now concentrated in the secretary of state’s office.

Meanwhile, Johnson and some heroic state legislators are urging the federal government to step in and challenge Benson’s rules. “It’s not over by a long shot,” said Johnson.

---