Ingham County Board opposes proposed state constitutional change requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register

The Ingham County Board of Commissioners on May 26 adopted Resolution #26-280 opposing a ballot initiative that would add a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement to Michigan's voter registration process. The resolution passed 12–1 (Yeas: Cahill, Grebner, Lawrence, Johnson, Morgan, Peña, Pratt, Polsdofer, Sebolt, Tennis, Trubac, Willis; Nay: Maiville; Absent: Ruest, Schafer).

The measure, introduced for immediate consideration, would require voters to supply documents such as passports or birth certificates to register, a change the Board and multiple public commenters said would create cost and logistical barriers for many residents. The resolution says the proposal would “create red tape, increase confusion about the voter registration process, and create cost barriers for the more than 680,000 Michiganders who do not possess or who lack easy access to these documents.”

Why it matters: County commissioners and community advocates said the requirement would disproportionately affect low-income residents, married women, people experiencing housing instability, and voters in rural areas who may not have ready access to birth certificates or passports. Public commenters noted Michigan voters approved a slate of pro-voter changes in 2022 and urged the county to defend recent access reforms.

Public testimony and exchanges Public speakers urged approval. Meridian Township resident Sherry Trezise, who described years of ‘‘relentless attacks on voting rights,’’ told commissioners the current proposal ‘‘was not the first and would not be the last’’ and argued it would target people without funds to obtain documentation. Kathy Petroni, president of the Lansing Area League of Women Voters, said her members ‘‘felt very strongly’’ against measures like the SAVE Act and that such steps were ‘‘not in the best interest of democracy.’’ Ben Gardner of All Voting Is Local provided a coalition letter and voting statistics urging passage.

Commissioner debate Discussion among commissioners touched on two strands: policy and process. Supporters described the resolution as an effort to protect access and called the proposal an unfunded, burdensome barrier. Commissioner Willis said requiring documents that have fees attached amounted to a de facto poll tax, noting family histories of disenfranchisement. Opponents raised concerns about how the resolution was added to the agenda at the last minute. Commissioner Maiville said he learned of the late addition only upon arrival and called the timing problematic, saying, ‘‘the whole thing stunk’’ and questioning whether Board procedures had been followed. Other commissioners responded that late additions can be brought under the Board’s rules and urged the body to focus on the substance of the proposed measure rather than the timing of the resolution’s placement.

Board action and next steps The Board voted to adopt the resolution opposing the ballot initiative. The adopted resolution asks the Ingham County Clerk to forward copies to other counties and the county’s state legislative delegation. It does not bind state officials or block the initiative from appearing on the statewide ballot; instead, it registers the county’s official opposition and is intended as a public record of the Board’s position.

What the resolution does and does not do The resolution is an advisory policy statement by the county. It does not change county voting rules, nor does it prevent the proposal from reaching the statewide ballot. Commissioners and public speakers emphasized that, if the goal is to ensure citizens can provide documents, a better approach would be programs that provide or waive fees for birth certificates or other identity documents—solutions that would not erect new barriers to registration.

Ending: The Board adopted the measure and directed the county clerk to distribute the resolution to other Michigan county clerks and the county’s legislative delegation; no additional county-level action on the initiative was specified at the meeting.