Voter held captive on Michigan's voter rolls

By Kristine Christlieb, Editor MFEI News & Commentary

October 28, 2026

A former Springfield Township voter wrote her clerk this spring and asked to be taken off Michigan's voter rolls, explaining in her May 27 letter she had moved to another state. The clerk followed her instruction and updated her record. Four months later, the Michigan Bureau of Elections put her back on the voter rolls. 

According to Springfield Township Clerk Sean Miller, the former resident returned to the voter rolls on Sept. 28, marked "Challenge-Confirm Residency."

Miller said he knows of no other case like it.

The voter's request

The woman's signed letter ran two sentences: "I no longer live in the state of Michigan. Please remove me from the voter roll."

Miller acted on it. On June 1, he changed her status in the Qualified Voter File to "Cancel – moved out of state." 

The state’s official voter file, called the Qualified Voter File, is Michigan's statewide voter registration database. Miller said the June 1 change shows in the voter's history in the database. A handwritten note on the letter reads "cancelled 6/1/26" and provides further evidence of the clerk's action.

Every registration in the voter file carries a status — active, verify, challenge, cancel or reject — plus a reason, according to a June 2026 Bureau of Elections letter. An August 2026 review by the state auditor general also names a "Rejected – Citizenship" status.

The woman confirmed by phone to MFEI News & Commentary she wrote the letter and now lives in another state. MFEI News & Commentary is not naming her because she prefers to remain anonymous. She told this reporter she had no idea she had been returned to the voter rolls.

What this case seems to reveal is that written notification from a voter isn't enough to ensure removal. In federal law, it is enough. The National Voter Registration Act allows removal at the voter's request. It also allows removal when a voter confirms in writing that she has moved out of the jurisdiction. Her letter did both. The Michigan Department of State's published cancellation procedures says a voter who wishes to cancel their registration “can make written request to their city or township clerk.” Miller followed that rule, and it worked. She came off the rolls June 1.

What the record shows is different. A written request was enough to get her off but not enough to keep her off. Four months later, the Bureau reversed the clerk's cancellation.

How it was caught

Tim Vetter, a volunteer investigator with the Michigan Fair Elections Institute's DEEP Team, spotted the problem. DEEP stands for Data Evaluation Election Processes. The team combs through Michigan's voter rolls every month.

Vetter said the woman dropped out of the statewide voter file the Bureau publishes after Miller canceled her. In September, the Bureau flipped her status from canceled to challenged. She reappeared on the Oct. 1 voter rolls the Bureau published.

Vetter took the finding to Miller on Oct. 13. Vetter said Miller was shocked.

What the clerk did

After hearing from Vetter, Miller canceled the woman a second time. As of Oct. 23, she remained canceled, he said.

Miller said there is no set procedure for reporting this kind of incident.

"There is no standard contact protocol as this has never happened before," Miller wrote.

Unfortunately, he is incorrect. It has happened before. Michigan Rep. Rachelle Smit, herself a former clerk, in a House Election Integrity Committee hearing, told a representative of Promote of her experience of removing a deceased person only to discover the state put that person back on.

As of Oct. 23, Miller had not contacted anyone about the case. Miller answered written questions from MFEI News & Commentary.

What the state's rules suggest

It’s not clear why the Bureau put the voter back on the rolls, but the label on her record offers a clue. "Challenge-Confirm Residency" asks a voter to confirm where she lives. But her signed letter had already done that.

The state runs a notice system for voters it believes may have moved. Under the Michigan Department of State's published procedures, such a voter is sent a notice of cancellation. "Voters who have received a notice of cancellation can respond to the notice confirming that their registration should be canceled," the procedures say. If the voter confirms the move, “this results in the registration being canceled immediately, rather than at the end of the two-election waiting period."

An MFEI News & Commentary review of those procedures points to one explanation. The state may have decided written notice from a voter of a move is not enough, it must be verified; and then restarted the process with its own notice, putting her record back on the rolls to await her answer.

The procedures do not describe reopening a canceled record for that purpose. Neither does the auditor general's review. The woman told this reporter she had no idea she was back on the rolls. Whether she was ever sent a notice is not known.

Under the Bureau's challenge manual, a challenged voter gets 30 days to respond. If she does not, her registration is canceled.

Other explanations remain possible. The voter file updates daily from driver's license records, and Michigan registers people to vote automatically when they apply for or change a license, according to the auditor general. Reports from another state or from the Electronic Registration Information Center, a multistate data-sharing group, can also flag a voter as moved, according to the Department of State. A duplicate record or a hand change by someone at the Bureau could also explain it.

This incident also raises the question as to who is ultimately in charge of the voter rolls — the local clerk or the state? The law places responsibility with the clerk.

.

The Bureau's response

MFEI News & Commentary asked the Bureau of Elections on Oct. 27 what triggered the Sept. 28 change, whether a person or an automated process made it, and whether other canceled voters were restored the same way. The Bureau did not respond by the deadline.

'Very disturbing'

"This incident is very disturbing," said Patrice Johnson, founder of Michigan Fair Elections Institute. "The clerk believed he had successfully removed the voter. Is the Bureau again exceeding its authority? The Bureau's return of the former resident to the voter roll was only discovered because of one of our volunteers' careful, monthly examination of the voter rolls."

Miller said he knows of no other cases; but now, how can he be sure there are no other cases? 

Three questions hang over this voter's case. What triggered the state to put her back?How many others have been put back? And who has ultimate authority over local voter rolls?