LANSING Chair Wozniak convened a Joint Committee on Administrative Rules hearing that drew three public witnesses who urged the committee to reject the Department of State Bureau of Electionsproposed rule package (referred to in testimony as "rule set 13"). The bureau did not attend; committee leaders said the bureau is expected at a follow-up hearing next week.

Patrice Johnson, chair of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections, told the committee the proposed rules are "unlawful, unworkable, and harmful to Michigan voters." She said the draft imposes a new "personal knowledge" standard for challenges that would disqualify documentary evidence such as USPS records, death certificates and some online sources and that, in her view, the result is effectively rewriting statute. "These rules invent law out of thin air," Johnson said. She cited MCL 168.512 and MCL 24.233 and told the committee the draft conflicts with federal requirements discussed in testimony.

Johnson also criticized language she said makes voter-list maintenance optional, pointing to repeated draft phrases that use words such as "chooses" or "not required." She argued that federal and state obligations to maintain accurate rolls, including citations to HAVA and related federal provisions mentioned in testimony, mean local clerks have mandatory duties that should not be made optional by rule.

Witnesses raised practical and equity concerns. Johnson estimated that some draft provisions would require notarization and certified mail, which she described as adding costs (she cited roughly $15 for notarization and $8 for certified mail) that could make citizen-initiated challenges expensive. She warned a separate draft provision allowing a 20-year retention window for some records would conflict with shorter federal retention limits.

Jeff Schaefer of Southeast Oakland Patriots echoed Johnsons points, saying public and governmental bodies commonly use sources such as national change-of-address data and death records to identify out-of-date registrations. "We oppose rule set number 13 as written," Schaefer said, adding that citizen groups have developed reliable processes to help clerks maintain accurate files.

Committee members asked clarifying questions. Senator Theis expressed shock at testimony about a 20-year retention period and asked whether witnesses had seen similar language in other states. A committee member noted Michigans same-day registration as a mitigating factor for inadvertent removals but also pressed witnesses on how the 30-day response window for challenged registrants interacts with separate provisions that would require local poll books to be erased shortly after certification.

Amanda Love, a community organizer and candidate for Michigan Secretary of State, told the committee the personal-knowledge requirement would "restrict community members from using reliable data to flag ineligible registrations" and risk inconsistent enforcement that could disadvantage communities that rely on collective vigilance. Love said removing named online sources would "reduce transparency" and urged the secretary of state to "eliminate the personal knowledge standard and restore clear statute-based guidelines."

Chair Wozniak reminded attendees that the Bureau of Elections had a scheduling conflict and that a second hearing is planned with bureau staff present. With no quorum present, the committee took only one procedural action: Senator Tice moved to excuse absent members; "there being no objection," the motion prevailed. The chair then adjourned the hearing.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to excuse absent members: moved by Senator Tice; agreed "there being no objection" and the motion prevailed. No other formal rulemaking votes were taken because the committee did not have a quorum.

Why this matters

Witnesses said the draft rules would alter how voter challenges are handled across Michigan by narrowing the set of acceptable evidence, limiting citizen participation in list maintenance, and creating new costs and retention timelines for local records. Committee members signaled further review and a planned second hearing when Bureau of Elections representatives attend.

Provenance: First related remarks (topicintro) appear at 00:13:49 (Patrice Johnsonopening testimony). Last related remarks (topicfinish) appear at 00:35:35 (follow-up discussion and close of public testimony).