Michigan Gubernatorial Candidate Anthony Hudson Tells Dave Bondy He Is Leaving GOP for Libertarian Party

 

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan gubernatorial candidate Anthony Hudson told journalist Dave Bondy during an interview this week that he is leaving the Republican Party and joining the Libertarian Party, confirming he intends to continue his run for governor under his new political affiliation.

Hudson said the decision had not yet been announced publicly elsewhere and that Bondy was the Michigan Gubernatorial Candidate Anthony Hudson Tells Dave Bondy He Is Leaving GOP for Libertarian Party person outside his campaign to hear it.

“I wanted to tell you first before I told anybody, even social media, that I have decided to drop from the Republican Party,” Hudson told Bondy during the interview.

He emphasized that the move represented a complete break from the GOP rather than a temporary or symbolic shift.

“I’ll leave the party as a whole,” Hudson said. “And I have joined the Libertarian Party, and I’m going to continue to run under that platform.”

Hudson did not provide additional explanation during the interview regarding what prompted his departure from the Republican Party. He also did not outline any policy disagreements, campaign changes, or ideological shifts associated with the move, nor did he indicate when or whether he plans to release a broader public statement.

Ballot Access and Strategic Implications

While Hudson did not explicitly address ballot access during his conversation with Bondy, the timing of the announcement has drawn attention from political observers familiar with Michigan election law.

In Michigan, candidates seeking the Republican nomination for governor must collect and submit a significant number of valid nominating petition signatures to qualify for the primary ballot. Candidates who fail to meet those requirements are removed from the ballot regardless of campaign activity.

By contrast, the Libertarian Party does not require candidates to collect petitions to appear on the ballot. Instead, Libertarian nominees are selected through a party convention, after which the party certifies its candidate directly to the state.

Under Michigan law, signatures collected on Republican nominating petitions cannot be reused if a candidate later changes party affiliation, even if those signatures were never submitted. Once a candidate leaves the party, those petition sheets become legally unusable.

A Likely Strategic Reset

Given those rules, Hudson’s switch to the Libertarian Party is widely viewed as a strategic move that allows him to remain in the gubernatorial race without meeting the Republican Party’s petition thresholds.

Political insiders say the change strongly suggests Hudson did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the Republican primary ballot and is now seeking nomination through the Libertarian Party’s convention process, which bypasses the petition requirement entirely.

Hudson has not publicly confirmed the status of his Republican petition effort and did not address signature totals during the interview.

What Comes Next

Hudson’s candidacy now hinges on the Libertarian Party’s convention, where delegates will determine the party’s gubernatorial nominee. If selected, Hudson would still appear on the general election ballot despite failing to qualify for the Republican primary.

The party switch marks one of the more notable tactical pivots in Michigan’s 2026 gubernatorial race and highlights how ballot access rules often shape campaign strategy long before voters ever cast a ballot.

If you want this sharper, more prosecutorial, or adjusted for headline-only publication, Substack, or print, say the word and I’ll tune it exactly where you want it.

The Record Is Clear: Melting Snow Has Never Caused an Air Quality Alert in Metro Detroit

Metro Detroit air quality is shaped by a combination of industrial emissions, traffic pollution, regional weather patterns, and long-range transport of pollutants such as wildfire smoke. While air quality advisories are issued regularly in Michigan, especially during summer ozone season or during major smoke events, advisories in February tied to melting snow are virtually unheard of.

A review of historical air quality advisory records confirms that there has never been a documented air quality alert issued in Metro Detroit specifically due to melting snow.

A Decade of Air Quality Advisory Records

Historical records from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy show that nearly all Air Quality Advisories and Action Days in Southeast Michigan occur during warmer months. These advisories are overwhelmingly driven by elevated ground-level ozone or by particulate pollution associated with wildfire smoke drifting into the region.

Annual air quality monitoring reports consistently show that advisory days cluster between late spring and early fall. Summer ozone exceedances and smoke-related PM2.5 events dominate the data. Winter advisories are rare, and when they do occur, they are typically associated with temperature inversions trapping emissions near the surface, not with snowmelt.

Archived AirNow and MiAir data confirm this pattern. While wintertime particulate levels can fluctuate, there is no historical record of an advisory being issued in February because melting snow released trapped pollutants into the air.

What Historically Triggers Air Quality Advisories

Michigan air quality advisories have historically been issued for three primary reasons.

Wildfire smoke transported from Canada or the western United States, often producing multi-day PM2.5 exceedances during summer.

Ground-level ozone formation during warm, sunny conditions when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the atmosphere.

Occasional stagnant weather patterns that allow pollution to accumulate, almost always outside of deep winter months.

Snowmelt does not appear as a triggering factor in advisory records.

Winter Air Quality Trends in Metro Detroit

Air quality in Detroit and Southeast Michigan typically improves during winter months. Colder temperatures suppress ozone formation, and snow cover along with frequent precipitation helps remove particulates from the air.

While temperature inversions can occasionally trap pollution near the surface during winter, historical monitoring shows that these events rarely rise to the level required for an official advisory. Importantly, there is no evidence in historical advisory logs that melting snow in February has ever caused particulate levels high enough to trigger an alert.

Day-to-day winter air quality variations are common, but formal advisories remain strongly seasonal.

The February 2026 Advisory Context

The February 2026 Air Quality Advisory issued for Southeast Michigan drew attention precisely because it was unusual. It occurred during a mid-winter warmup combined with stagnant atmospheric conditions that limited dispersion of fine particulates.

Even in this case, agencies described the advisory as atypical for February. Historical data indicates this event stands alone not because snowmelt advisories are common, but because they essentially do not exist in the historical record.

Why Melting Snow Rarely Creates Air Quality Alerts

Snow acts as a temporary sink for pollutants over the winter, collecting dust, vehicle residue, and airborne particulates. However, several factors prevent snowmelt from becoming an air quality driver.

Snow usually melts gradually or refreezes, preventing sudden releases of particles into the air.

February weather patterns typically include fronts and wind systems that disperse pollutants.

The amount of particulate matter released during snowmelt has historically been insufficient to meet advisory thresholds.

As a result, February snowmelt has never been a documented cause of an air quality alert in Metro Detroit.

Looking Ahead

Michigan’s MiAir monitoring system continues to provide comprehensive real-time and historical air quality data statewide. Understanding long-term trends remains critical as climate variability introduces new and unusual conditions.

However, based on available historical records, one conclusion is clear. Metro Detroit has never experienced an air quality alert issued specifically due to melting snow in February, making such claims unsupported by the data.

Foreign Governments Own Michigan Land And No One Voted for It

Foreign ownership of Michigan land is no longer abstract. It is quantified, documented, and deeply troubling.

Federal disclosures and investigative reporting show that Singapore, through its sovereign wealth fund, owns more than five hundred forty thousand acres of land in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. That single foreign government controls roughly five percent of the entire Upper Peninsula. This land is not symbolic. It is working timberland and agricultural land that directly affects Michigan’s economy, environment, and rural communities.

Singapore is not an outlier. Foreign entities collectively own approximately one point nine million acres of agricultural land in Michigan. That represents nearly nine percent of all farmland in the state. When forest land classified as agricultural is included, foreign controlled acreage is heavily concentrated in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.

Canada, European countries, and other foreign investors also hold significant portions of Michigan land through corporations, holding companies, and investment vehicles. In many cases, the true foreign owners are concealed behind layered corporate structures, making local oversight and accountability effectively impossible.

This did not happen because Michigan voters chose it. It happened because state and federal law treat farmland as a financial asset rather than a strategic resource. Disclosure laws exist but are weak. Enforcement is minimal. Penalties are negligible. The system is designed to record ownership after the fact, not to prevent the loss of control in the first place.

The consequences are real. Farmland is tied to food security, water resources, environmental stewardship, and local economic stability. When ownership shifts overseas, Michigan residents lose influence over how land is managed, harvested, conserved, or sold. Decisions that affect Michigan communities are made by foreign governments and investors with no accountability to the people who live on or near the land.

Lawmakers often respond by proposing transparency measures or future purchase restrictions. That response ignores the core issue. Nearly nine percent of Michigan farmland is already foreign owned. Five percent of the Upper Peninsula is already controlled by a single foreign government. Registration does not reverse that reality.

No serious nation claims to value sovereignty while allowing foreign governments to accumulate vast portions of its agricultural land. Michigan cannot claim to protect its future while exporting control of its land without debate, without consent, and without a strategy to reclaim it.

If land equals power, then Michigan is surrendering power quietly and calling it investment.

Across the United States, many states have already concluded that unrestricted foreign ownership of land poses a risk to sovereignty, food security, and public accountability. Michigan is not acting in a vacuum. It is lagging behind.

Several states have enacted outright bans or strict limits on foreign ownership of agricultural land and strategic property.

Arkansas has one of the strongest enforcement records. The state prohibits prohibited foreign parties from owning agricultural land and has already forced a foreign linked company to divest thousands of acres of farmland. This was not symbolic legislation. It was enforced.

Florida passed legislation prohibiting certain foreign nationals, including those connected to hostile foreign governments, from purchasing land in the state unless they are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Courts have upheld the law, recognizing the state’s authority to regulate land ownership in the interest of security and sovereignty.

Texas enacted a sweeping ban that prevents individuals domiciled in specific foreign adversary nations from acquiring any interest in land, including agricultural property. The law treats land ownership as a strategic issue rather than a passive investment decision.

Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and other Midwestern and Plains states maintain long standing restrictions on foreign ownership of agricultural land. Some impose acreage caps. Others require divestment. Many restrict ownership to citizens or resident entities. These laws have existed for decades and reflect a regional consensus that farmland should remain under domestic control.

Hawaii restricts foreign ownership of certain public lands, recognizing the unique geographic and resource constraints of the state. Oregon similarly limits access to state owned land, reserving ownership for citizens or those with a clear path to citizenship.

In total, more than thirty states now enforce some form of restriction on foreign land ownership. Some focus on agricultural land. Others target property near military bases, critical infrastructure, or water resources. Many states combine bans with mandatory reporting and enforcement mechanisms.

These laws are not rooted in hostility toward foreign people. They are grounded in a basic principle. Land is not just property. It is power. It determines who controls food production, water access, environmental management, and long term economic stability.

Michigan currently allows millions of acres of its farmland to remain under foreign control while debating transparency measures that do not reclaim ownership or limit influence. Other states have already acted. They drew clear lines. Michigan has not.

If Michigan fails to follow suit, it is not because the tools do not exist. It is because the political will has not yet caught up to the reality on the ground.

Ringleaders in Michigan Signature Fraud Scheme Convicted, Sentencing Set

Mount Clemens, Mich. — Two men identified by prosecutors as the ringleaders of a widespread signature fraud scheme that blocked multiple judicial and gubernatorial candidates from appearing on Michigan’s August 2022 primary ballot will be sentenced next month, following a jury verdict finding them guilty of forging citizen signatures.

The jury concluded that the defendants orchestrated a coordinated operation to submit fraudulent nominating petitions, using forged names and falsified voter information to satisfy Michigan’s ballot-access requirements. The scheme ultimately led to the disqualification of several candidates after election officials determined that thousands of petition signatures were invalid.

According to prosecutors, the fraud was not accidental or isolated. Investigators uncovered repeated handwriting patterns, duplicate signatures across multiple petitions, and signatures attributed to voters who testified under oath that they never signed the documents. Some signatures were linked to individuals who were deceased or no longer registered to vote in Michigan.

The fraudulent petitions triggered alarm within the Secretary of State’s office due to unusually high rejection rates. A broader investigation by the Michigan Attorney General’s office revealed a centralized operation involving paid circulators and mass forgery, rather than simple clerical errors.

Because the fraudulent signatures were intermingled with legitimate ones, courts ruled that entire petition submissions had to be invalidated, resulting in the removal of multiple candidates from the primary ballot. Judges later affirmed those decisions, citing the scale of the fraud and the impossibility of separating valid signatures from forged ones.

During trial, prosecutors described the scheme as a direct assault on democratic access, arguing it manipulated the electoral process by deciding who voters were allowed to choose before any votes were cast.

“This case was about gatekeeping democracy through fraud,” prosecutors told jurors. “The defendants didn’t just break the law — they distorted the election itself.”

Defense attorneys argued their clients were unaware of the forgeries and blamed individual petition circulators. The jury rejected that defense, finding the evidence showed leadership, coordination, and intent.

The men now face potential prison sentences, fines, and election-related penalties. Sentencing is scheduled for next month in Macomb County Circuit Court.

State officials say the case has already prompted increased scrutiny of nominating petitions and reinforced the consequences of election-related fraud.

As sentencing approaches, the case stands as one of Michigan’s most consequential election integrity prosecutions — not for altering vote totals, but for corrupting the process that determines which candidates voters are allowed to see on the ballot.

Iron Pig Smokehouse Cordon Sparks Renewed Legal Clash With Michigan Attorney General

 

GAYLORD, Mich. — Iron Pig Smokehouse’s downtown location was cordoned off with police tape late Wednesday night, reigniting a long-running legal dispute between the Gaylord restaurant and the State of Michigan that dates back to the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The closure occurred at approximately 10:56 p.m. on February 5, according to a public statement released by Iron Pig. As of Thursday morning, no detailed public explanation had been issued identifying the specific enforcement authority responsible for the action.

---

No Prior Notice, Restaurant Says

Iron Pig stated it received no prior notice before the location was restricted, despite what it claims are statutory notice requirements for certain regulatory actions.

The restaurant said the action may involve the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, though it emphasized that this had not yet been formally confirmed. Local law enforcement assisted in securing the site, but Iron Pig stressed it has no dispute with local authorities.

“Our local authorities are always great to work with,” the business said in a statement.

---

Action Follows Supreme Court Filing

The enforcement action came three days after Iron Pig filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, seeking to challenge additional provisions of the Michigan Public Health Code.

In its filing, Iron Pig argues that statutes including MCL 333.2253 and MCL 333.2453 are unconstitutional and materially similar to emergency powers previously invalidated by Michigan courts.

The restaurant’s owners contend that the state is continuing to enforce provisions that lack constitutional authority, an argument that has been central to their legal strategy since 2020.

---

Five-Year Anniversary of 2020 Closure Order

The timing of the action also coincided with the five-year anniversary of a 2020 Temporary Restraining Order that forced Iron Pig to close during the pandemic.

At the time, the restaurant was warned it could face jail or fines for noncompliance with state emergency orders. Subsequent court rulings later determined that the governor’s emergency authority had been unlawfully extended, invalidating key enforcement mechanisms used during that period.

Iron Pig has repeatedly argued that while the emergency orders were later struck down, businesses subjected to enforcement were never made whole.

---

State Denies Targeting

State officials have consistently denied claims that Iron Pig has been singled out for retaliation, maintaining that regulatory actions are routine and based on compliance issues, not political or legal disputes.

Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office has defended Michigan’s regulatory framework and has not publicly commented on the latest action as of publication.

---

Business Remains Operational Elsewhere

Iron Pig confirmed that its new location remains open and said it plans to continue operating while it gathers more information about the enforcement action.

“We always have a plan,” the business said.

 A timeline of Conflict

What follows is a chronological timeline of the events that have defined the standoff between Iron Pig and state authorities under Attorney General Dana Nessel.

---

2020 — Emergency Orders and Forced Closure

• Early 2020: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan issues a series of emergency executive and health orders affecting restaurants and bars statewide.

• Iron Pig refuses full compliance, disputing the legal authority underpinning the orders.

• State enforcement escalates rapidly.

• Iron Pig is threatened with jail if it does not close immediately.

• A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is issued in Lansing, compelling closure.

• Iron Pig publicly argues the orders exceed constitutional authority and violate due process.

This moment becomes the foundation of Iron Pig’s long-running claim: that it was targeted not for safety violations, but for defiance.

---

2021–2022 — Courts Undercut Emergency Authority

• Michigan courts rule that the Governor’s emergency powers were unlawfully extended, invalidating key mechanisms used to justify pandemic enforcement.

• Despite these rulings, Iron Pig contends that the damage from earlier enforcement was never remedied, and accountability was never imposed on state actors.

• The restaurant continues operating under heightened scrutiny.

---

2023–2024 — Regulatory Pressure Continues

• Iron Pig reports ongoing inspections, compliance actions, and licensing pressure, particularly involving alcohol and health code statutes.

• The business maintains that enforcement is selective and disproportionate, compared to similarly situated establishments.

• State officials deny any targeting and maintain actions are routine regulatory enforcement.

---

Monday, February 2, 2026 — Supreme Court Appeal Filed

• Iron Pig files leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court.

• The appeal challenges additional Michigan Health Code statutes, arguing they are constitutionally indistinguishable from provisions already struck down by courts:

  • MCL 333.2253

  • MCL 333.2453

• The filing directly questions whether Michigan agencies are continuing to enforce laws that lack constitutional grounding.

---

Wednesday Night, February 5, 2026 — Iron Pig Cordon Off

• At approximately 10:56 p.m., Iron Pig’s downtown Gaylord location is cordoned off with police tape.

• No public explanation is immediately provided.

• Iron Pig states it received no prior notice, despite statutory requirements for notice in certain regulatory actions.

• The business suggests the action may involve the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, though confirmation is not provided at the time.

Notably, the closure occurs:

• Days after Iron Pig’s Supreme Court filing

• On the five-year anniversary of the 2020 TRO and closure threat

Iron Pig publicly characterizes the timing as “impossible to ignore.”

---

Official Response and Public Messaging

• Iron Pig states it is cooperating with local authorities, emphasizing that the dispute is with state-level enforcement, not local law enforcement.

• The business announces that its new location remains open, signaling continuity despite pressure.

• The owners reiterate: “We always have a plan.”

---

The Central Dispute

At the heart of the conflict are unresolved questions:

• Can Michigan continue enforcing health and regulatory statutes rooted in powers courts have already rejected?

• Does selective enforcement constitute retaliation when a business openly challenges state authority?

• Why do enforcement actions appear to coincide with major legal filings?

---

Broader Legal Implications

Legal observers say the dispute raises broader questions about:

• The scope of state administrative power

• Due process protections for businesses

• Whether regulatory enforcement can be used as leverage against litigants challenging state authority

If the Michigan Supreme Court agrees to hear Iron Pig’s appeal, the case could further clarify the limits of public health enforcement and regulatory power in Michigan.

New SNAP Work Requirements Take Effect in Additional States Starting February 1, Including Michigan

Washington, D.C. — Expanded work requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are taking effect in additional states beginning February 1, including Michigan, potentially impacting millions of low-income Americans who rely on the program to help pay for groceries.

SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, currently serves about 42 million people, or roughly one in eight Americans, according to federal data. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is implementing new rules as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

Under changes enacted through a tax and spending law signed in July, many adult SNAP recipients must now work, volunteer, or participate in job training for at least 80 hours per month to remain eligible. Individuals who fail to meet the requirement are limited to three months of benefits within a three-year period.

Expanded Eligibility Rules

Previously, work requirements applied only to able-bodied adults ages 18 to 54 without dependents. The new law expands those requirements to include adults ages 55 to 64 and parents whose children are age 14 or older.

The changes also eliminate longstanding exemptions for homeless individuals, military veterans, and young adults aging out of foster care. In addition, the law restricts states’ ability to waive work requirements in regions with limited employment opportunities.

Michigan-Specific Requirements

In Michigan, the expanded SNAP work requirements take effect February 1, according to state officials.

Michigan recipients who fall under the new rules will be required to document at least 80 hours per month of employment, approved volunteer service, or participation in a qualifying job training or employment program. Individuals who do not meet or properly report these requirements may lose benefits after three months within a 36-month period.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) has advised affected recipients to expect written notices, phone calls, or electronic communications outlining their obligations and deadlines. Recipients must submit verification through the state’s MI Bridges system or directly through their local MDHHS office.

State officials have warned that failure to submit paperwork, even when a recipient is working, could result in the suspension or termination of benefits.

State-by-State Rollout

The timing of the new rules depends on when each state implemented the policy.

• Texas began enforcing the requirements in October, meaning some recipients may have already exhausted their three months of benefits as of January 1.

• States including Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, and Hawaii began the clock in November, with benefit losses possible in early February.

• Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois begin enforcement on February 1, with Ohio requiring documentation of work activity starting in March.

• California currently maintains a statewide waiver due to unemployment conditions, which is scheduled to remain in effect until January 2027.

Some regional waivers remain in place nationwide, though many have already expired or are set to end soon.

What Recipients Should Know

SNAP recipients affected by the new requirements must submit additional documentation to verify work or training participation. Advocacy groups urge recipients to respond promptly to notices from their state SNAP offices and to maintain records of hours worked or activities completed.

Failure to comply with reporting requirements may result in loss of benefits, even for recipients who are otherwise eligible.

Impact and Scope

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new requirements are expected to reduce the average monthly SNAP caseload by approximately 2.4 million people over the next decade.

While most SNAP recipients live in households below the federal poverty line — about $33,000 annually for a family of four — federal data show that nearly two in five SNAP households include at least one working individual. More than 60 percent of recipients live in families with children, and over one-third live in households that include seniors or people with disabilities.

The average SNAP benefit is approximately $190 per person per month.

Looking Ahead

As enforcement expands nationwide and begins in Michigan, advocacy organizations and state agencies are closely monitoring the impact on food access, employment participation, and administrative workload. Additional changes may follow as remaining state waivers expire and compliance data are reviewed.

Michigan Secretary of State Admits Another Noncitizen Vote — But Stonewalls Accountability Questions

 

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has now acknowledged another confirmed case of noncitizen voting in Michigan — while declining to answer basic questions about how often it has happened, how many illegal ballots were cast, or what concrete steps her office is taking to stop it from happening again.

The admission came Thursday after the Department of State reviewed records flagged by Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini, whose office uncovered evidence that noncitizens had appeared in jury pools and, in several cases, were registered to vote and had cast ballots.

Speaking at a livestreamed press conference, Benson confirmed that one of the individuals identified in Forlini’s data review was a noncitizen who voted in a Michigan election. She also acknowledged that her office canceled that individual’s voter registration — but refused to disclose how many times the person voted, whether additional illegal ballots were cast, or whether similar cases were previously missed by state reviews.

That refusal has become a pattern.

A Pattern of Admissions — and Evasions

Forlini’s office reported that between September 2025 and January 2026, 239 individuals selected for jury duty in Macomb County self-identified as noncitizens. Cross-checking those names against voter rolls revealed 14 individuals who had registered to vote at some point, including 10 still listed as qualified voters. At least three showed voting histories, and one had voted multiple times before removal.

Under Michigan law, noncitizens are barred from both jury service and voting.

Yet Michigan’s automatic voter registration system — tied to driver’s license transactions — relies on self-attestation of citizenship, not verification against a federal database. The state does not systematically confirm citizenship status before adding individuals to the voter rolls.

Benson has repeatedly insisted that “only U.S. citizens can register to vote or cast ballots in our elections.” The evidence emerging from Macomb County directly contradicts that claim.

Numbers Don’t Add Up

The scope of the issue becomes more troubling when viewed statewide.

When Benson took office, Michigan had approximately 7.5 million registered voters — about 300,000 fewer than the voting-age population. By 2022, the state reported roughly 8.2 million registered voters for a voting-age population of about 7.9 million, following an expansion of automatic registration programs.

Despite those figures, Benson has refused to provide a clear accounting of how many noncitizens have been identified and removed from the voter rolls during her tenure. When pressed by reporters Thursday, she could not — or would not — answer.

Instead, she alleged without documentation that her office has removed more than 1.1 million “out-of-date” registrations, a figure unrelated to the narrower and more serious question of illegal voting by noncitizens.

Prior Testimony, Now Undercut

This is not the first time Benson’s public statements have been undermined by later disclosures.

In September 2024, Benson testified before Congress that there was “no evidence that noncitizens are voting.” One month later, she acknowledged that a Chinese national — a University of Michigan student — illegally cast a ballot in the 2024 election that could not be retrieved once counted.

By April 2025, Benson admitted at least 15 additional illegal ballots were likely cast in that same election. Republican lawmakers later suggested the true number could be significantly higher.

Now, with another confirmed noncitizen vote emerging from Forlini’s findings, Benson again downplayed the significance — while warning that scrutiny itself could harm “faith in elections.”

Shifting Blame, Avoiding Fixes

Rather than outlining corrective measures, Benson has focused her criticism on those who uncovered the problem.

She accused Forlini and federal investigators of attempting to “intimidate” state officials and suggested that efforts to tighten election safeguards are politically motivated. At the same time, she continues to campaign against proposals requiring proof of citizenship or photo identification to vote — measures supporters argue would directly address the vulnerabilities now on display.

Despite promising in 2025 to work with lawmakers on legislation to prevent illegal voting, no such bill has materialized from her office. Instead, Benson proposed a slate of election rule changes critics say would make challenges to illegal votes more difficult.

She also declined to specify what steps, if any, her office is taking to prevent noncitizen voting going forward.

The Core Question Remains

At issue is not rhetoric, but responsibility.

Michigan law is clear. Voting by noncitizens is illegal. Each confirmed case represents not just a clerical error, but a breakdown in election administration. Yet Benson — now overseeing the state’s election system while campaigning for higher office — has offered assurances instead of answers, narratives instead of numbers.

Forlini’s findings suggest the problem may not be isolated. Benson’s unwillingness to fully account for it has only intensified scrutiny.

As one confirmed noncitizen vote becomes two, then sixteen, then potentially dozens, the question facing Michigan voters is simple: how many more went undetected — and why does the state’s chief election official still refuse to say?